Loading...
15915 74TH PL W.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII 5949 15915 74TH PL W zq/ TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: ��JiJ ^'�UD —&/9 ,�? —Z� BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): O(�� D��� COVENANTS (RECORDED) ©1140A CRITICAL AREAS : / DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver �tudy Required ❑ Waiver DIISCCRETIONARY PERMI�T/#'S: 7 DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: �5//-f,0J PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: +C�/ //I As SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: 0/0 SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: & BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMITS) #: SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: fEl lJt�,Olvu/c�d`7�� /4j>c com Le7v e1wjr17ecvR-,0 LATEMMI)STCsTormAStreet File Checklist.doc I� c-9 0 1�.1�7 Of Edmonds PERMIT NO: 9828 SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES S�4/ D Address of Construction: LID # Property Tax Account Parcel No. Co-J I - b0c)-- 03A '6!!) Attach copies of all access and utility ��epasements Verified and Approved by Owner and/or Contractor: 41 N d4 /1..J<.,d'Y1aA IN - Contractor License #- i h ICH IE0O(ol OS Building Permit #: [12/Single Family Invasion`i6to City *Right -of Way: El Yes' No ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units *RW Con. struction Termit # ❑ Commercial (No. of Units ) Cross other **Private YNja erty: Yes ❑ No Public / **Attach legal description an',60py of recorded easement. n Owner/Contractor 49 QZvn'-contractor signature and acknowledgement statement: Date By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled �ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein. 2 CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800_ }.-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 9 9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extension" 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL JNSPECTION REQUESTS NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A.$45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES NO Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Date:_Initial:,�� Partial Inspection: Date:, Initial:' FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: 0 Initial: As -built to Street File:. ❑ 1,� PERMIT. MUST B POSTED ON JOB SITE t-- White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp;bldg;forms;sspenn itj Ig4/00 A0FEDP E r t11 ❑ C.B. _ 62,59' 3, 4,5' 2,5' . . . 2 � . / ,5' 22• BEND o C.O. Z 4' DEEP —PILES FOR WALL Z— 2.5' CLEARANCE BETWEEN PIPE & WALL 15915 2' ABS 7, ' C.❑. 2' DEEP V110 2.5' rop, Pin 6' C,❑, /W LINE ate_ T 1 \ a 15917 (17') .5' DEEP IN D/W f'i�T�^r_. Pl j Ejt, �; ,.vim Q Ii1TQrPT -,. ��, ., y c; Cl iii0 ; i;aii f; r,�;� c1 I . - , ^ _ i 2" Ye:?- ..• ...: !� i;eiy of F�;�:.,r ,G,. ,,n. � rC� ...... ..3 ere' map. Ci c:s;::y r,- . r.:a not ii: cf is may or ;i and may or rz; r,ct c:;;-t at i thU lout, :, �,; ';.1 �Neither the 0 Edr,ioindb ncr ins or Officers syaii bt Ga ;;; for the inforl,iz";(('!i given on this map, nor for any oral If representation provided based upon said map , CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS -BUILT ADDRESS 15915 - 74th Place West HOMEOWNER CONTRACTOR SCALE Hillman Michel Construction NTS DATE DRAWN PERMIT 3-11-2004 BY K, Haney NO. 9828 CA FILE NO. —! 2 Atical Areas Checklist i -------------------------------------------------------------- Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/vegetation) I S , i,�r Qt, 1. Site Address/Location: 71 — }7L W. 2 3 4 5 Property Tax Account Number: 5133 - (Zoo ' dZZ3- (5 (Zas Of Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): la ox 22 o Is this site currently developed? yes; X no. If yes; how is site developed? 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: 1Jy ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: 140 ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the,.floodway ? floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? 40 Flows are seasonal? A (What time of year? ), 10. Site is primarily: forested X ; meadow shrubs ; mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: , N 0 .. .. ... :Reviewed by: `7h.. ,... _.. j 1 /�O / 9,i PfAner Date ' iM�l tamed span At+e-,—r,-cj no w A-k ,. t k a, -ti: do - scc. U%�la..t f�bavzzl Z�c- �^ .. 3i,'t/rL _chk.d-, Rev 10/01/97 5tepq — },r vF 6c y� b bw/w nbrel �, CIL s� • RECEIVE csoV 0 5 1999 City of Edmonds DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. 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. 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 assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and- attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner/Applicant: -` Ga014 kolsky Name 11 I-77," Pl. SW Street Address 98 O 12 City State Zip Telephone Signature Date Applicant Representative: oc�d. Me Jo-k Name «� 5 ySE Street Address City State Zip 337 - t 5'?7 Telephone Signature lif �99 Date vreception\jana\caddoc (over) o Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer June 28, 2002 City of Edmonds Planning and Building Division jJ1�C�1E1. C06JST. 121 5 1h Ave. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Geotechnical Criteria / Buffer Reduction Proposed New Single -Family Residence 15915 74th PI. W, Edmonds, Washington This engineering letter presents geotechnical criteria for the buffer reduction with regard to the proposed new single-family residence at 15915. 74" PI. W., Edmonds, Washington. REFERENCES: • Geotechnical Evaluation Report dated March 29,.2001 by D. Bruce, P.E. • Site Plan, Site Topographic Map and Proposed House Layout BUFFER REDUCTION: This engineer, has done additional site geotechnical investigations and observed the proposed layout of the residence for 15915 741h PI. W. (see Site Plan with House Footprint Layout). The.proposed house layout location is geotechnically approved. As stated in the March 29, 2001 Geotechnical Report, the property is stable, with dense, native sub -grade soils. In accordance with ECDC 20.15B.110, the nominal.50- foot buffer may be reduced to 10 feet. A reduction in the buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet (from toe -of -slope) is geotechnically acceptable (see Proposed Plans with Buffer Reduction). This reduction in buffer does not pose any threat to the public health, safety or welfare on or off the property. As stated in the Geotechnical Report, on -site inspections by a qualified, geotechnical engineer are required. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT : INSPECTION, % DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT + LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 : Shoreline, Washington 98155 . (206) 546-9217 : FAX 546-8442 City of Edmonds ; Planning and Building Division June 28, 2002 Page 2 SUMMARY: • . A reduction in the buffer distance from 50 feet to 10 feet (from toe -of -slope) is geotechnically approved. • On -site geotechnical inspections required. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. Es 12f2Y o DMB:abj cc: Michel Construction, Inc. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer ZONE SETBACKS: APPROVED BY PLANNING P-° �! �RECEIVED '� RECE FRONT � , � � E� lD 3 ERMIT COU ER HER T HEIC IT se ` W v ..�.� — . — . — . ✓rn O rtl Q ftWH >[.P M. ✓I •aau 23623 20O AVENUE W er I � N O%2 ' - ,�• _ + � BOIIIELL NA$H91CiO1 98021 C6 E (/25) 605-3703 m y" _ �-psw A. Y n [ she r, Ma Wpm rVa e K s ti - ` P.-�4i- ss ✓N A _ HILLMAN , ,ate o%<. _.�.-° !/ _ ' k ''e ,.� �/ RESIDENCE LEGAL DESCRIPTION / — 15915 74th PLACE W O+nen: Unda a tom Na4nm1 /�� ./ / Y EDMONDS, WA 98026 lino NE tx98 4-43 1595 t „ LINE I 's P,m• WA see,. 0051 - IN01 TES - 05 Asfeefeis vareel Numlr•rt 0031]]000OJ300 I'±-1�/*a _J/// , /;�- ! : • %%�i%"'. 1 ��i���� Ss ✓ R•sia•n<• It%oba at 15915 74tn Place west. Edmonds. ShohcVh sh County, WwNnglon 96026 described as fall. PARCEL N L�� CLIENT S Chet ENTAA r T c 33, uE1. th. LE BEACH ( ' ''/ i %' l3NDA Y TOY BIWIAN suvvtiwEN5AL VUT, a«erd :9 b a. Rmt m.r•o1 ''� I �jii"'„ /;',•,;' y j. y ' I IStreet _ t'Q n vo4,me 5 el Plata. voq• 2. M 9nonomtan Coener. II /.• / t tt{10 NL 1A 95 34-43 /593 ` I /r. I IDTILIfD6, AA 9800{-{]05 1 w.Ahbplah, 4--ibed .a fala.a: a „ I�__ -- _ ,`�.'. at the Nartn.ast w of said Tra<[ J3: -� r.-u✓ m, ` %,�.(, t 1 I ({25)-625-7552 • Y tBn°•°,K "i_ along the NaM 1'a,. ar said Trott z20.61 It'.. .at: IMnc• $auth in a ftl0ignt line b awpoiM an lM SouN line EI 1/ I of ., tract. .rricn n 230.29 1M dal al the $wbeaat 1 " er of fail Trot IMnce Weft, alenq or 5outn she of sab froct to the ���fl V+--- r.•:; _i I I .a Seut`eeat c of said Tract 33; Z Ia\ t • MortlWHy .-9 Weal•r1T sne a1 aoia tract 3] to k poll of begimm-q. -I Mp SET6N, .Ni ACCESS EASE.ENT5 __ __ - \ / T - C 9- t-toe-SW-cam•r. of add JroN 33: �. thence E olmq Ile S woo•rt7 "v 115'; � +tot nen<. N. a.rv^dc.w to he 5 pmpert7 �t/\�.� If SITE PLAN '+ b n W the W paraa✓ to S pbpeRi line too point on the �` ` \\,• henPc�ySn to the SW came. of add Tract SJ. t Y nermu C.__inq at the SW comer of sold Tract 3e: pommel Ih• na E, ce aionq the S waperl7 fn• 25': tn•No I ���� N�_— •4I .. the c wooefty she. to a point 10. S of the N prop7 tnen • E. paroto mW ll•I a N nrortT sne. 90. \ N•M• N. pe,pendi Wo b t e N pralh-, Iihto the N tq property .k, J /�` `� ' Noce W along t e N PrepertF she to Inc NW corner of ; a s OS7l � a . R1n The <t )•. n t 6.5e � ••�- A _�\ �♦ �� pET RN. /1 tMn<I $ abnq Ne W wopertl sn• to lne 5W carver of 6-20-03 p[Raat REV. /7 said lracl 34, 7 _� LOT ZONING vERYR REVIEWER PURPOSES. NOTE: — i.15 SITE PLAN SNOWS EXISTING GRADES ONLY FOR RS-20 SITE PLAN GRADYATlONN. FOEXISTIRUSE REFER TO GRAIVILDES. ENGINEER GRADING RAN FOR EXISTING AND PROPOSED GRADES. l.' LCULATIONS , REFER TO TREE RAN AT LEFT OF THIS SHEET FOR LOCATION LOT COVERAGE CAACRE (27Se1 $F) SCALE 1" = 20'-0' OF EXISTING TREES TO RE11NN, EXISTING TREES TO BE 0AC LOT SIZE ...REmO/EO. AND NOTES FOR TREE PROTECTION WRING HOUSE Al GARAGE FOOTPRINT 3a67 S.F. CONSTRUCnoN. ��- PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 12.5% COVERAGE HEIGHT CALCULATIONWes KAGNIT CALCULATIONS S esR3Erc seT PR_tnT DRARINGS e_ �� M r_ TREE PLAN "" '�CORKER 2.66' I Le CORNER a 112.50' =- CORNEA C 119.50' -' �` ~�` ^-''��'�'" `•` _�� -� w 1 SCALE 1" 20'-0'* I CORNER D .17.00 - e - 115.42' AvERACE GRADE BE= -�r'_r-_+-� ��- !••^ L, 1l„ 115.a2' AVERAGE GRADE PLUS 25.0'- •_•-+ „�_ ^--�,� '-"�' osrru®.V-1 1{0. a2' (1.0'-5) YA%. BUILDING "EIGHT CITY COPY t> Gwe.- We- 155"" — eaLG, I ot, w Ind (-06Ls e, vw 1 (( 0 need S qGW�� S - PA PLANNING DATA TE: SITE ADDRESS: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: P l t,4,-v/ P-7� — 1> REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: Yes / Co CH MAP PAGE:_ CORNER LOT: Yes / o FLAG LOT: Yes Do ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #:-'fl� - 'I J/'�tudy Required: C07'+ti-ram Lam- i S- �P sj0�� D` ❑ Waiver ❑ Conditional Waiver eece G rem - sfi-i.� h �a S ovs�e_ t -f- . /he SEPA DETERMINATION: ❑ Fee ❑ Checklist ❑ YO list w/ notarized form (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) ❑ Exempt( P (Gt^'1 S SIX -ice 1000 C-Y"4, y1Gi SETBACKS: I 0, Required Setbacks: > Streeteft Side: Right Si Rear: I Actual Setbacks: / (/v���i �5tpyr5 Street:�3 Left Side:Right Side:_ Rear: 00, !GI Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No / DNA) I i' 'pi on �lahs ❑ DETACHED STRUCTURES: ri ❑ ROCKERIES: ,rAnilo+ ex6e—cd -31 Gc r� �v c� B Y ! ✓aGf � l �► .S�-��jl� S ❑ FENCES/TRELLISES: it. is Gt,►-�Gl.eq„� �ypy.,( ,,IS ❑ BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: 1 /" ❑ STAIRS / DECKS: PARKING: Requirred::�Actual:�+ LOT AREA: -7. -4 I &t ` LOT COVE Calculations: BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Pointe vve- / Ah/10 e -011S- Datum Elevation: I' ��Yje G0Y✓�G( P Maximum Allowed: , � tual Height: D. 2 Y�wr� A.D.U. CREATED No)Yes I,�ID. KZ Ylea►'e�f 1004 SUBDIVISION: LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: Yes No -5&4 - reAKWkj hiw( 50 - l kte- Plan Review By: NewBPPlanningData.Form.DOC City of Edmonds , Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Rob Michel Determination #: CA-02-003 Project Name: Permit Number. N/A Site Location: 15915 74' PI. W Lot #33 Property Tax Acct #: 3133 000 033 0000 Project Description: New SFR Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): X There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; X The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives. and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; X The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; .X The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. This conditional waiver is only for the new single-family house as shown in the attached site plan. This is conditional waiver is permitted per ECDC 20.15.110 A. which allows the 50 foot steep slope buffer to be reduced to 10 feet. 2. All recommendations of thegeotechnical report by Dennis M. Bruce (dated March 29, 2001) most be followed. 3. On -site inspections by a quaMedgeotechnical engineer are required as stated in the Jane 28, 2002 letter from Dennis M. Brace. 4.' Driveways have not been shown on the attached site plan and have not been approved with this waiver. 5. A building permit is req'uIre& for all work. Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Cilipte 20. SB.040 (Axl).of the Edmonds n Community Development Code. A _ x r � City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Dennis & Nancy Eckman Determination #: CA-95=16 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 159T74th Pl. W. Property Tax Acct #: 5133-000-034-0207 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection of the property has revealed a'steep slope which may be as steep or steeper than 30% and there is more than 20 feet of vertical elevation gain. Additionally, a wetland appears to be directly adjacent to the property: Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is potential for critical areas on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the boundaries of the potential critical area, its buffers and setbacks. A wetland biologist must perform a wetland analysis and delineate the wetland boundaries and associated buffers. A licensed surveyor must create a topographic map of the site which indicates all areas which slope 30% or more and have a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 30% slopes additionally, the map should indicate the toe of slope. Finally, the map must also show the buffers and setbacks of the steep slope and wetland. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its butlers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Kirk Vinish February 1. 1995 Name Signature Date RECEIVE® DEC 1 12002 PERMIT COUNTER HeL CTION, INC. December 10, 2002 Community Services Department Planning/Building Division City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 • RECEIVED DEC 112002 PERMIT COUNTER Re: Undeveloped Property located at 15917 7411' PI. W, Edmonds (Lot 34) I. Application for Reasonable Use Exception p e r 20.15B.040C II. Variance per 20.15B.170A for Wetland, Stream and Steep Slope , Setbacks pursuant to. Critical Areas CA-95-16 determination III. Variance for Retaining wall in front setback t o allow proper driveway grade. Dear Planner: to order to proceed with improvement plans for the subject property, the following Reasonable Use Exception Application is submitted in' accordance with the City of Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). I. REASONABLE USE EXCEPTION The subject property was platted in 1905. Since that time, t h e current ECD.0 results in requirements which would render these legal lots undevelopable due to the various Wetland, Stream and Steep Slope setback requirements. It is our assertion that the subject property is feasibly buildable as platted, subject to the grant of the Reasonable Use Exception and Variances requested. Page I of 7 7907 - 212TH SW, #102 • EDMONDS, WA 98026 • (425) 776-221 1 • FAX (425) 778-9086 • #MICHEC1061D5 6, 0 i a) Denial of Reasonable Use. Applicant states that a strict application of Chapter 20.15B.120 would deny all reasonable use of the subject property because Chapter 20.15B.120 of the Edmonds Community Development Code requires a Twenty (25) foot wide buffer from Category 3 Wetlands and Category 2 Stream and section ' 20.15B.080 (C) requires an additional Fifteen (15) foot building set back line (BSBL) from any required buffer. Please see the attached drawing (Exhibit "A") which shows the resulting building area - which because of required building setbacks and avoidance of the steep slope - would result in a permitted building footprint far less than that allowed by zoning, lot size, and that enjoyed by other owners in the area. The intended footprint of approximately 3,040 SF is similar to and in some cases much less, than that of recent projects in the area, recognizing the underlying value of the neighborhood due to its location and view corridors. b) No other reasonable use consistent with Zoning. There is no other reasonable use consistent with the underlying zoning with less impact on the critical area or its buffer, either as primary or as a permitted secondary uses. The area is largely single family residential and the general. topography would not permit secondary uses allowed in the zoning as they either require larger building massing, larger land sites, or result in uses that are not Highest and Best Uses for the site. c) No unreasonable threat to Public. The proposed public health,. the proposed accordance w E) and best rr development will not pose any threat to the safety or welfare on or off the property because single family residence will be built in ith a Geotechnical Engineer's guidelines (Exhibit anagement practices as required by the ECDC. The attached Geotechnical report indicates that the existing soil conditions are suitable to support typical construction methodologies and practices. No adverse conditions are noted in the report. All development will be performed within the property lines with appropriate controls to prevent any debris or material encroaching onto adjacent properties. Page 2 of 7 • d) Minimal. critical areas reduction. The proposed alteration to the critical area and its buffer will be minimized as much as possible to allow a complementary building area and safe ingress/egress as that enjoyed by existing lot owners in the area. As noted in the Critical Areas study completed by Wetland Resources Inc. (Exhibit B) the wetland area in question exceeds the 2,500 SF action threshold by approximately a mere 100 SF on the property itself and by approximately 400 SF in total. Due to its small size and the relatively homogenous nature of the fauna, the wetland area itself is of limited value toward improving water quality, wildlife habitat, or storm water attenuation. ■ It is interesting to note that the Geotechnical report describing Test Pit #3 on Lot 34 indicates no seepage at any depth, although some seepage did_ .occur at Test Pit #1 on lot 32. Considering that the City of Edmonds constructed a storm water interception system bordering lots 32 and 33 approximately 10-15 years ago lends credence to the theory that the small wetland area . on lot #34 may have been caused by previous runoff from lots #32 and #33 that is n o longer impacting' lot #34. This would mean that the wetland area is residual in nature and artificial in origin. ■ No building is planned in the steep slope area and the slope in question will be substantively undisturbed. ■ The small, seasonal stream will be substantively unaffected by this project as it is located south of the property's southern boundary by approximately 10-15 Feet and outside of the intended building area. e) Compliance with . all State and Federal laws. The proposed activity complies with all state, local and federal laws. There are no sediment or pollution challenges nor are any floodplains involved. Wastewater will be removed from site through the city sewer system. Page 3 of 7 • • f) Requested Exception current owner's actin recorded in 1905 (See is not due to previous or n . Since the lot was platted a n d attached map Exhibit "C"), the economic use deficiency was created by the passage of and subsequent to the effective date of the adoption of 'this 'new ordinance. II. VARIANCE APPLICATION PURSUANT TO 20.1511.170 & 20.85.010 1) Because of the special circumstances applicable to the subject property; including its size, shape, topography, location of surrounding steep slopes, and wetlands, strict application of this title would deprive the subject property substantively of all its reasonable property use. See attached plot plan (Exhibit "A") that describes the currently allowed building footprint area under a strict ECDC interpretation versus the location applied for. a) The granting of this variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development proposal, which is a building footprint similar. to that enjoyed by other lot owners in the area. b) This proposal will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property of improvements in the vicinity and zone. in which the property situated because development will follow a geotechnical engineer's guidelines and best management practices as required by the ECDC. The proposed development is not contrary to the goals and purposes of the chapter. 2) Special Privilege. Approval of this variance would not grant special privilege because similar houses would be built complementary to other properties in the same zoning and immediate area. 3) Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated as "Single Family" residential on the comprehensive plan and the proposed use is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 4) Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the zone district which is single family RS 20. Page 4 of 7 5) Not Detrimental. Approval of the variance will not b e detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. 6) Minimum Variance. The proposal is the minimum necessary to allow enjoyment of the property as enjoyed by other property owner in the same zoning and neighborhood. The attached siting proposal allows the most logical and least disruptive use of the property. III. Retaining Wall Variance: Applicant seeks to construct a driveway retaining wall located within, the front setback of the property. By sharing the driveway with the adjacent property, applicant will reduce impervious surfaces and reduce curb cuts along. the street. Without the retaining wall and routing of the driveway along the front of the property, the d' 'll b f h' 1 d ld d rw iveay wi a too steep or emergency ve is es an wou excee the ECDC slope standard. 1) Special Circumstances. Because of the special circumstances applicable to the. subject property: 'including size, shape, topography, location of surrounding steep slopes, wetlands, and public street right of way, strict application of this title would deprive the subject property all reasonable use of the property. See attached plot plan (Exhibit "D") showing the driveway profile providing access to .the homes. a) The granting of this variance is the minimum necessary to accommodate the development proposal which is safe access to a building site similar to that enjoyed by other lot owners in the area. b) This proposal will not be materially detrimental to the public welfare or injurious to the property of improvements in the vicinity and zone in which the property situated because development will follow, a geotechnical engineer's guidelines and best management practices as required by the ECDC. The proposed development is not contrary to the goals and purposes of the chapter. 2) Special Privilege. Approval of this variance would not grant special privilege because similar houses would be built and similar use is proposed as other properties in the same zoning. Page 5 of 7 N 3) Comprehensive Plan. The subject property is designated "Single Family" residential in the comprehensive plan and the proposed use is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for . the site. 4) Zoning Ordinance. The proposal is consistent with the zone district which is single family RS 20. 5) Not Detrimental. Approval of the variance will not be detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare or injurious or improvements in the vicinity and same zone. i 6) Minimum Variance. Due to the steep slope and hence reduced buildable lot area, the proposal is the minimum necessary to allow enjoyment of the property commensurate to that enjoyed by other property owners in the same zoning and immediate area. Applicant requests that the City of Edmonds grant, the requested reasonable use exception and described variances. Respectfully submitted, Robin W. Michel Michel Construction, Inc. t Page 6 of 7 Attachment Schedule A. Lot with current required setbacks and proposed building footprint. B. Critical Areas Study, dated March 14, 2002 C. Record of Plat (1905) D. Driveway Profile E. Geotechnical Evaluation, dated March 29,, 2001 Page 7 of 7 i aA oC� RIGHT OF_wAY AC w KIVEWA'r 710 ••� rn � i>70T�� 71 m i . ,— I , mM>-'� �. DOGlrO ��•�� .n 79mZ� I N C7 Q Q -{ ......•.. . OOv Z01 79 �N�C31 Q < rn O>MnZ Z r () 8 03 rn Q >.r- C m 7v ii tor- Q r m c z N N O n � �nr1l .,may �Zcr 5o6 --- N Ott, :H� LOCATION:. CTION, INC. 15917 74TH PLACE W EDMONDS, wA 88028 E D M O N D5, WA. 98026 REM McGrew Michel. BUILDING DESIGN 71XI7212THSTSW,EDAIONDS%VAYPo125 OFFICE: 42577h.2211 FAX: 423.M.VIW: n • • RECEIVE® i�AR 1 � 2002 WelaldWO��c /`IC. *� 1 . PLAWING WT. Delineation / Mitigation / Restoration / Habitat creation / Permit Assistance 9505 19th Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett, Wdshington 98208 (425) 337-3174 Fax (425) 337-3045 CRITICAL AREAS STUDY FOR CITY OF EDMONDS 74TH PL. W. Lots 15911,15915, and 15917 Wetland Resources, Inc. Project #02005 Prepared By: Wetland Resources, Inc. 9505 19th Ave. SE Suite 106 Everett, WA 98208 (425) 337-3174 For: City of Edmonds Attn: Meg Gruwell 1215" Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 March 14, 2002 a q TABLE OF CONTENTS SITE DESCRIPTION WETLAND CLASSIFICATION — COWARDIN SYSTEM WETLAND CLASSIFICATION — CITY OF EDMONDS BUILDING SETBACK WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS WETLAND AND BUFFER FUNCTIONS AND VALUES WILDLIFE USE OF THIS CRITICAL AREAS STUDY REFERENCES FIELD DATA CRITICAL AREAS STUDY MAP 2 2 2 2 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 1/1 r �7 Critical Areas Study: 7e Pl. W. WRI# 020Q5 SITE DESCRIPTION Wetland Resources, Inc. conducted a wetland delineation on January 11, 2002 to locate jurisdictional'wetlands on three half -acre lots located at 15911, 15915, and 15917, 74`h Place West in the city of Edmonds, Was The site is located as part of Section 5, Township 27N, Range . 4E, W.M. All three lots were investigated for the presence of critical areas. Critical areas are present only on lot 15917. These properties are located to the east of an unopened portion of 74'b Place West. This site is located on a hill that slopes down from the east to the west. It appears that this hill was ten -aced at some time in the past. The northern two thirds of the .site are relatively flat. The southern portion of the site slopes from the north down to the south. A Category, 3 wetland is located in a slight draw on lot 15917. This wetland drains to a Category 2 stream that flows along the southern property boundary. In the city of Edmonds, Category 3 wetlands and Category 2 streams are given 25 foot protective buffers. Typical vegetation on -site (all three lots) is represented by a canopy of big leaf maple (Acer macrophyllum, FacU) and red alder (Alnus rubra, Fac), with an understory of salmonberry (Rubus spectabilis, Fac+), Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor, FacU), and dewberry (Rubus ursinus, FacU). Vegetation in the wetland is represented by Himalayan blackberry (R. discolor, FacU), small fruit bullrush (Scirpus microcarpus, Obl), field horsetail (Equisetum arvense, Fac), and lady fem (Athyrium fzlix femina, Fac). WETLAND CLASSIFICATION - COWARDIN SYSTEM According to the Cowardin System, as described in Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States, the on -site wetland is classified as follows: Wetland: Palustrine, Emergent Wetland, Semi- permanently flooded. Stream: Riverine, Upper perennial, Streambed, Cobble Gravel. WETLAND CLASSIFICATION — CITY OF EDMONDS Under ECDC, chapter 20.15B (Critical Areas), the on -site wetland is classified as follows: Wetland Category 3: This wetland is less than one acre in size, is greater than 2,500 square feet, and has one wetland class. Category 3 wetlands in the city of Edmonds typically receive 25 -foot, protective buffers. Stream Category: This stream is smaller than .a Category 1 steam, but is still perennial. Category 2 streams in the city of Edmonds typically receive 25- foot protective buffers. In the city of Edmonds, critical areas and their buffers, may be required to be placed in a separate critical area tract or easement. The City may also require the critical area tract to be designated "native growth protection easement". In this case, appropriate survey markers and permanent signage shall be installed on the property at the boundary of the critical areas andlor their buffers (20.15B.160). BUILDING SETBACK Pursuant to ECDC chapter 20.15B: A building setback line of 15 feet is required from the edge of any buffer to prevent construction intrusions into the buffer. The setback shall be identified on the site plan which is filed as an attachment to the notice on title required by ECDC 20.15B.160(B) WETLAND DETERMINATION REPORT Methodology On site, routine methodology as described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual (Washington State Department of Ecology Publication #96-94, March 1997), was used for this determination, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. Critical Areas Study: 74" Pl. W. WRI# 020Q5 Under this method, the process for making a wetland determination is based on three sequential steps: 1) Examination of the site for hydrophytic vegetation (species present and percentage cover). 2) If hydrophytic vegetation is found, then the presence of hydric soils is determined. 3) Determination of the presence of wetland hydrology in the area examined under the first two steps. Vegetation Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. 1997 edition, defines hydrophytic vegetation as the sum total of macrophytic plant life that occurs in areas where the frequency and duration of inundation or soil saturation produce permanently or periodically saturated soils of sufficient duration to exert a controlling influence on the plant species present. One of the most common indicators for hydrophytic vegetation is when more than 50 percent of a plant community consists of species rated "Facultative" and wetter on lists of plant species that occur in wetlands. Soil Criteria and Mapped Description The Washington, State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. 1997 edition, defines hydric soils as those that formed under conditions of saturation, flooding, or ponding long enough during the growing season to develop anaerobic conditions in the upper part. Field indicators are used for determining whether a given soil meets the definition and criteria for hydric soils. The soils underlying this site are mapped in the Soil Survey of Snohomish Count,�Area Washingion. 1973 edition as Alderwood-Everett gravelly sandy loam, 25 to 70 percent slopes. This map unit is on till plains, terraces, and outwash plains. This unit is about 60 percent. Alderwood gravelly sandy loam and about 25 percent Everett gravelly sandy loam. Included in this unit are small areas of Ragnar, Indianola, McKenna, and Norma soils and Terric Medisaprists in depressional areas and drainageways on plains. Also included are colluvial soils, slump areas, and escarpments. ; Pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.060(3a), Alderwood-Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes) are Erosion Hazard Areas. Erosion Hazard Areas are those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe erosion hazard. Pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.110(B), alterations within the identified erosion hazard areas shall not be authorized without an approved erosion control plan pursuant to chapter 18.30 ECDC, which includes staged clearing, where appropriate. Clearing or disruption of the soils within an erosion hazard area shall be kept at the minimum necessary to provide reasonable use of the site. Hydrology Criteria The Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. 1997 edition, states that "areas which are seasonally inundated and/or saturated to the surface for a consecutive number of days greater than or equal to 12.5% of the growing season are wetlands, provided the soil and vegetation parameters are met. Areas inundated or saturated between 5 and 12.5% of the growing season in most years may or may not be wetlands. Areas saturated to the surface for less than 5% of the growing season are non -wetlands." Field indicators are used for determining whether wetland hydrology parameters are met. BOUNDARY DETERMINATION FINDINGS On -site Wetland: This wetland is located in a small draw in the southwest portion of the site. The upper portion of the wetland is represented by overhanging big leaf maple (A. macrophyllum, FacU) and red alder (A. rubra, Fac). In the wetland, vegetation is comprised of piggy back plant (Tolmiea menziesii, Fac) and field horsetail (E. arvense, Fac), with lesser amounts of salmonbeny (K spectabilis, _Fac+) and Himalayan blackberry (R. discolor, FacU). In the lower portion of the Critical Areas Study: 74" Pl. W. WRI# 02035 wetland vegetation is represented by Himalayan blackberry (R. discolor, FacU), small fruit bullrush (S. microcarpus, Obl), field horsetail (E. arvense, Fac), and lady fern (A. filix femina, Fac). Soils in this wetland have a Munsell color of very dark gray (2.5 Y 3/1) with redox features of brown (7.5 YR 4/4) and a texture of sandy loam from 0 to 15 inches. From 15 to below 18 inches, soils have a Munsell color of dark gray (5 Y 4/1) with redox features of dark yellowish brown (10 YR 4/4) and a texture of loamy sand. Soils were very moist at the time of field work. Non -Wetland Areas: Vegetation in the non -wetland portions of the site is represented by big leaf maple (A. macrophyllum, FacU), and red alder (A. rubra, Fac) in the canopy, with salmonberry (R- spectabilis, Fac), Himalayan blackberry (R. discolor, FacU), dewberry (R. ursinus, FacU), and Sword fern (P. munitum, FacU) in the understory. Upland soils on site range from a Munsell color of very dark grayish brown (10 YR 3/2) to dark grayish brown (2.5 Y 4/2) with a texture of sandy loam to loamy sand. Soils sampled in the upland areas were dry to saturated at the time of investigation. A large portion of this site appears to have been terraced at sometime in the past; this activity involved moving and disturbing a good deal of soil. There are several areas on site that have that meet the soil and hydrology criteria for wetlands, but do not meet the vegetation criteria. Because of this these areas were not included in the wetland portions of the site. WETLAND AND BUFFER FUNCTIONS AND VALUES Methodology The methodology for this functions and values assessment is based on professional opinion developed through past field analyses and interpretation. This assessment pertains specifically to this system, but is typical for assessments of similar systems common to western Washington. Wetlands in western Washington perform a variety of ecosystem functions. Included among the most important and analyzed functions provided .by wetlands are stormwater storage/floodflow attenuation, water quality improvements, and wildlife habitat. Assessment of these functions for the project site are provided below. Stormwater Storage/Flood, flow Attenuation Wetlands often function as natural water storage areas during periods of precipitation and flooding. By storing water that otherwise might be channeled into open flow systems;: wetlands can attenuate or modify potentially damaging effects of storm events, reducing erosion and peak flows to downstream systems. Additionally, the soils underlying wetlands are often less permeable, providing long term storage of stormwater and controlling bas?eflows to downstream systems. Stormwater storage capacity and floodflow attenuation are generally a function of the size of a wetland and its topographic characteristics. Water Quality Surface runoff during periods of precipitation increases the potential for sediments and pollutants to enter surface water. Wetlands and buffers improve water quality by acting as filters as water passes through them, trapping sediments and pollutants from surface water. Ponded areas within depressional wetlands also allow "sediments to drop out of suspension, thereby improving water quality. The size of wetlands and buffers ,and the vegetation structure within them are the main factors determining the capacity of this function. Wildlife Habitat Wetlands and their buffers have potential to provide diverse habitat for aquatic, terrestrial and avian species for nesting, rearing, foraging, and as cover. Wildlife species are commonly dependent upon a variety of intermingled habitat types, including wetlands, adjacent uplands, large bodies of water, and movement corridors between them Human intrusion, including development within and adjacent to wetlands, and impacts to movement corridors are the factors which may limit wetland wildlife habitat functional capacity. Critical Areas Study: 74' Pl. W. WRI# 02045 Analysis Stormwater Storage/Floodf low Attenuation Due to the location of this wetland within the landscape, this wetland has the potential to make beneficial contributions to the functions of stormwater storage and floodflow attenuation. The size of the wetland allows it to collect and store water as it drains from the surrounding hillside and slowly release it to the associated stream. Water Quality This wetland has the ability to make moderate contributions to the function of water quality. As water passes through this wetland, the size and presence of emergent vegetation slows the water, . allowing suspended sediments to settle. Along with this, the emergent vegetation takes up and traps nutrients, thus preventing downstream eutrophication. Wildlife Habitat Given the small size and presence of surrounding development, this wetland only has the potential to make minimal contributions to wildlife habitat. The most important benefit is food and cover to birds, amphibians, and small mammals. WILDLIFE At the time of our investigation, fauna typical of western Washington forests at that time of year were heard or observed. Several species of birds were noted including white -crowned sparrow, American robin, spotted towhee, winter wren, dark-eyed'junco, black -capped chickadee and Stellar's jay, other resident and migratory species would be expected to utilize the site during some portion of their lives. No herpetofauna were noted. Critical Areas Study: 70"Pl. W. WRI# 020LT5 USE OF THIS CRITICAL AREAS STUDY This Critical Areas Study is supplied to the City of Edmonds as a means of describing jurisdictional wetland conditions, as required by the City of Edmonds during the permitting process. This report is based largely on readily observable conditions and to a lesser extent, on readily ascertainable conditions. No attempt has been made to determine hidden or concealed conditions. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of'the site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation or probing difficulties. The laws applicable to wetlands are subject to varying interpretations and may be changed at any time by the courts or legislative bodies. This report is intended to provide information deemed relevant in the applicant's attempt to comply with the laws now in effect. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by wetland ecologists. j No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Wetland Resources, Inc. Louis Emenhiser Wetland Ecologist Critical Areas study: Vh Pl. W. WRI# 0200 REFERENCES City of Edmonds Code Chapter 20.15B' Critical Areas. Classification of Wetlands and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. FWS/OBS-79/31. December 1979. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Corps of Engineers Wetlands Delineation Manual, 1987. Technical Report Y-87-1. Environmental Laboratory. U.S. Army Engineer Waterway Experiment Station. Vicksburg, MS. Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington United States Department of Agriculture, Soil. Conservation Service (1978).. National List of Plant Species that Occur in Wetlands, Northwest Region. 1996. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service. Washington, D.C. Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual. Washington State Department of Ecology. Publication #96-94. March 1997. Critical Areas Study: 74'" Pl. W. WRI# 020V5 WETLAND. ----- STREAM — — - WETLAND BUFFER ----• BSBL CITY OF EDMONDS 74TH PLACE WEST CRITICAL AREAS STUDY MAP SECTION 5, TOWNSHIP 27N, RANGE 4E,.W.M. / Ole 'Ile �� 01 / co W / SCALE 1" = 20' 0 10 20 30 40 LOT 15917 NOTE: NO CRITICAL AREAS LOCATED ON LOTS 15911 AND 15915 15' BSBL / O/ 25' WETLAND BUFFER CATEGORY 3 WETLAND - . (2,941 SQ., FT.) CATEGORY 2 STREAM I�/ W tWdReso��. b Delineation / Mibpation / Resmrabon / Nabitat Creation / Pemdt AsOsimce I 9505 19M Avenue S.E. Suite 106 Everett.Whsh fttm Phone: (425) 337-3174 Fax: (425) 337-3045 Email: mailbox@wetlandresoumes.com CRITICAL AREAS STUDY MAP CITY OF EDMONDS - 74TH PLACE WEST City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Sheet 1/1 Job # 02005 Drawn by: AB Date: Mardi 14, 2002 MIE-AD O VWD AL E B EA CH - SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT - . i � ts.✓ � Jie/rfe/I1lir� re{./e 8►...d s �//i..,rn.E./l�/o! �.gMn..a �� �"" h"••/r�►•'�I•r+�C/_,t�16,Q7,J/.J1.J3.Jl.iJJt,/Jo:r��eR%t • . - of A/c�e.r►6eNa/e .eeer ij er �aeei./ia✓in iri/. S ol�O/r/rii..yr.�+R«•...+a .! aT.aojoisriad Go�q/y lY.xrlligq�.j. «.a/iJ /Lr/ ... .. w�:+iW.rf.i A7�esoie.do6/e.B. c4 '�/� /arYe%�iea•,�g9 � .- -- t�i%d/6+ ✓a/.e.lJ vrnd.7%:.J e!/.otlJ ei+e au.ad.�.�•d /il�/9'p% z2 z6 ; .67cc/%�!• • • - e AMw.✓/swrsil/Sfrae/are...r/t /ifaf�Jf.ra,� ee% e trv+Oyrlieq, z % Owyreir .;r+ire Jii�/t e/ /yt %rotii enrjrrted •r AjN /1+te..tr`►d.•% EGrs�f R d w"Ao ,,Ar! /%f a�e6 rrtre/nie / +a�6/n/. r f 4 y o�� �/s✓re✓i�s/n I� /�e Mta a//�t/ife.ta ���W �• ♦ '•: J/ ...� ' /q Mn/gelJ w�e/v of /�e •/wvi/ /I.Jf ny /j%��/s/• � crrrJ. r/ iN orawwo- O, _ ; J , .� cv/.n./. wnr. A I} ,�,�..,prA rrLNii:./♦y {' ':* t v w ✓•.✓ A I. �aia.,�+ r1�wLd/jri �rN ./ Je r/. AZOSOvi/ oadMl►Iw/ae�i/L ,i . is a Jeer.:. i W nA' Exeirrinsd er�x/ni6ibrowei/ /id67� eJaJGrnrrr A.Q/9oJ. fx•rnsiiresl and o/yb <*ft � .�'�"...•a�j�"' � rs va•r/ 14N Order oiTanrriy AA. /906 = - / A.//.9. sT �do�s �• o�/�►/e o✓!(�iuijrir��.q iivrson.6bn/e�+e1 • _. Cernf� d /� �Si. g/y Ce.rsnsitrineia. fp i'� f/.�.hnow/sdO�s�n/, G�i/yi•i �anr .i.%,►an yy iso! dr/6re rya /�. r a•✓.w Na/wiy fYlVic rAsndiG.Iiie aioie cif%foJ.jiny/�rj /Oe�aegr//y n/o/a.or.t/ �Y1� 9 5 % 1' f%+/ /. m. /fire.vi Ada /Sia /ge sid�nf'e,/ !3'i.f and %a/.--/* Cole- �a�irfieq /ifn/ ereea/6e✓ �S eieoiisy inJ/i..in.nf r...d•,e.GRe,.,%/a•/yw./ Fi/ae/ %i• rvee�c/.rf .s id ii►a/ryr�n/ /L S/�. r�iye/•%nrr. aiCAii�wwSe u' ry def//rrineew.4s,17 ri eaa• J P. AI Y Or, •I a1�•P Rr.I �/ �e /a /e /J�+�♦riir m.n/ienr•/.•w/er•w/j ��A1•//rld+wyy '. ...rd ivs.�./it/•A I%tJtd f'Yilb /7.�.N A .r..•�vie irr�•7.A/ ww✓/�iwr/�a oewl./�t.d rI /:{e RK.ilrril e✓ droij.�jpy �Orir/S, Wctir CM/Wiwr/i Ver/ w/.rwdGwrjw.+e/j�� --'i• /4--_Tw•• ��l W%In.11 w�tryq// � G a/y .Nri/e.. — l' /�ia teiii%le`/�s �ii/ o6ays w�iHeq, .110IIIIIIIIIIII 9y� 12C ut IDI la - L.1 —0, _ _ f � 1 SECTION "8-B" - SCALE t' -10' )N'�- ---G ' Cy, 1 te'T•. W d.lL i GRADING QUANTITIES LOT 34 CUT: 272 CY Ir FILL: 71-4 CY -THE FILL QUANTITY OF 713 CY ►9 woa e.oemH� OF FDR `OIIRD GRADING) DRIVEWAY 6RADIN.6 "" °°� "' W°"°O1 & FILL To BE PLACED UNDERNEATH n1E (e II SPX oah • "'CO'� �"TX'O a''i'0' 5LAB ON GRADE BASEMENT. .mm sr,.ouo vTc nr ..o.X •.D A/•1 Appfl'10NA1 182 CY OF FILL CAIIID & PLACED UNDER MAIN FLOOR To ESTABLI5N A UNIFORM CRAWL. SPACE mmr Tm � wd soots ."Dao.. m.¢r ro Trar DIN• o a o.acTm n Doimt ELEVATIDM OF 111. S. SOURCE OF m.an.em = . m..c= All . FILL is To BE OBTAINED FROM 0AT N-�RDCKERY. DETAIL ON LOT 33 TME NORTH11 $ 115, �n . GRAbIA6 OLIANTITIES ARE 9041614 s CALCULATIONS LnATAG 00 NOT ACCODU:T NOTES PDR SOIL SWELLAGE AND SHRINKAGE. I. 70P0 c BOUNDARY FROM C 6, C SuRVEToRS. 2.FOR CLARITY, DECIDUOUS t CONIFER TREES ON SITE ARE NOT 5NOWN. 31.PotmSED GRADING LINES) DRIVEWAY AND HOUSE FOCJTPRINT C-0I LOT 33 ARE SIIOW14 FOR REFERENCE. - aae I` Te lf, VICINITY MAP LE4END �— EX13TIN6 COP47OUR LINE I IIS PROPOSED GRADING UNE coczr�7 ROCKERY ® KEYSTONE WALL "k " EDGE OF NEW P)WEMEP+T lm mmm m =:=:; loom msilmomommomm P, MOW "OEM= J ' —ioh --- —L— -- ----- �� ,?_,_ i _ FROP05ED DRIv&WAY I __ _ --_ -- --- --- -- ---- EXISTING GRADE n . I n Ian 140 ItE 160 170 ISO 140 20D 210 .2.2 10 cL, -W -Iv w I - CENTERLINE PROFILE OF THE 5HAR8D ORIVEWAY SCALE I" - 10' 7 SECTlCwq 'A - A' SCALE I"110' 1 I I 1 7 LOT 34 LEGAL DESCRIPTION TRACT 34 OF HEADOHDALE REACH 91PP1EMEMTAL PLAT. ACCORMC TO PUT RECOIfDEO W WLWE S OF PLATS AT PAGE(S) 47, IN 904(A 9C COIINTT. TIASW CTON. EXCEPT THE EAST HALF THEREOF. SITE LOCATION: AEADOWDALE RD.: -M& PL, W. EDMOAID$• WA PRFaAxEDBr: GRADING PLAN FOR �v�S`.TLOUGH DMICHEL CONST2UCTION SNOHOnnSH, WA 95290 . PHONE: 425-334-9990 FAX 425-334-7390 OATS: 10-28-O2 SCALE 1" 10' 1 SHEET I W 2 Gov,, I o' 31.00 Acres Gv`CN LuNp 5 COUNTY PARK LUND'S GULCH RIT I 10 Z W ` a 7 0 IIII — I 6 0 z so 4 3 56. 5 S-46 64 60 11 2 2 1 5-12-76 S 58 67 5-5-66 101 40 10 128.0' 12.7.69240.74' O U 0 Iia to H 60 (1)S I 24 (2) a I �• ^^11G� nn r a~ (c) S BY 66( , N N (N i cs) 'LLI — S- IT- TS 1 157 TH S T.'SA M 1 2 25 c ° - --- -- - 3 F so tt f ---- B j A S-17-8 (D) — - - --1— 28 — -- 26 — ---- - — , - s-s9•zs __ iyj_ OFfb,2957 i 27 MEADOW DALE W> BEACH—,3 m Q 1 7 1 1 158 T H ST S.W. 13 "' o NOT OPEN ~ t0 IZ L---- - 31 z rn o N- 3 ' Z a:L_____� --3 ._ 32 SUPPLE M E N T A L Ir- I 4 ' 4 I I 5 --5 -- a Q 29 - L 30 - 0 33 36 1 6 6 (4) I 0 7 7 A ,— ► -- a 34 P L A '7i (Ai S-IT-76 I I g ' g 35A, ('� B S-26-89 60 IOI 40 O I I 6C10 1 101 0 10 ------ --- — I - (A) ----- - I 3 ,Q 50 (8) 0 53 � 'q�149 --- 4 5 59 58--- 4/ 5 6 5 \ 1: 6 7 Q 5d W 51 Q 7 e o ~ --- - - s 52 Z 'S7 48 _ 10 ° O MEA 8 8d 9 S 7 W 9 10 8 7A OF Q 50 MEADOWDALE �� 3. EA, i J , 5 6 10 Q � 16?� N D ST S. W. 66 (A) '4 W 5 M 7 T ' 2 Z 2 (B) ,? 3 1 in � 60 3 • DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone:425-334-9980 Fax: 425-334-7380 DETENTION SYSTEM CALCULATIONS FOR CN=85 FOR TOM & LIN MLLMAN DATE: JULY 24, 2003 SITE: 74THPLACE W. & MEADOWDALE RD. LOT 33 EDMONDS, WA I59I5 7441 PL - W. 0/� ( Q �'��' Z � rt�v, isn1 ,p3 RECERVED STREET FILE.- AUG - 8 2003 PERMIT COUNTER DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC - SEWER & WATER FEASIBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT - rt 74TH PLACE W. & MEADOWDALE RD LOT 33 (Revise CN=85) The revised calculations shown in this report utilize a CN=85 in lieu of the CN=70 of as used in the previous calculations included within the October 30, 2002 Drainage Report prepared by this engineer. The attached calculations are for the upper driveway detention system. A portion of the pipe is to be installed on Lot 33, with the remainder on Lot 34 to the south. The calculations result in a pipe size of 107 LF and 2' diameter. The Hillman Lot 33 will include 57 LF of the detention pipe. The remainder, 50 LF will be placed in the Michel Construction Inc. site. Both pipes will shall are common release structure. 141 ULM AN - N� (C � D PA I NME CA LCS • SCAB -BASIN A - AREA. .30; 96 C SF = , 708 Ac SOIL TYPE - C ; 1� LD ER WO p.D - E U E R E-- �4- R f+ V ELLY SA A10 Y LOA HS RA Iry FA LL 1NTENSI-1 Es; Pz 1,311 P.= 2,0119 Peo = �. 00 E X I, r ING CON.o 1T0/V- 6ECouo GRoWx RRE-ST PeR EMaMM COM M I)APTY (PEV ELOPM XIT Co of Area=.106 A-c 7-2,t-03 � J OEV E LoPEp CdN DITI aN I m PER V (o us R 00�ro PuM% 7 300s FERV 100S wooded oreo C'N _ �8 lbehiad houses Ac =CCN to-zz-oz • • 7/23/03 page 1 HILLMAN/MICHEL - USE CN=85 FOR MEADOW CONDITION SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 STORAGE STRUCTURE LIST UNDERGROUND PIPE ID No. P1 Description: DETENTION PIPE Diameter: 2.00 ft. Length: 119.00 ft. Slope...: 0.0050 ft/ft [)e-cre-ase 'in Pipe, lef�A Cju2 �c l - L CAS a8" 10 E_q UA+ I�lace- P(a 4e- I �13f A of 2 P %ape �7, 3 FC3 12( 5p' L F on 97' LF an Lo}- 34 - M(pch6d ConSf Lof 33— �"11 �naa • • 7/23/03 _ Page 2 HILLMAN/MICHEL - USE CN=85 FOR MEADOW CONDITION SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: B100D NAME: 100 YR 24 HR DEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 0.54 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.17 Acres CN.... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.28 cfs VOL: 0.11 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B10D NAME: 10 YR 24 HR DEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 2.00 inches AREA..: 0.54 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.17 Acres CN..... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.14 cfs VOL: 0.06 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B2D NAME: 2 YR 24 HR DEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 1.30 inches AREA..: 0.54 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.17 Acres CN..... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.06 cfs VOL: 0.03 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min • 7/23/03 page 1 HILLMAN/MICHEL - USE CN=85 rux mhADOW CONDITION SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: A100X NAME: 100 YR 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 0.71 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.00 Acres CN....: 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 120.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.30 s:0.4800 PEAK RATE: 0.23 cfs VOL: 0.09 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: AlOX NAME: 10 YR 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 2.00 inches AREA..: 0.71 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.00 Acres CN....: 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 120.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.30 s:0.4800 PEAK RATE: 0.10 cfs VOL: 0.05 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: A2X NAME: 2 YR 24 HR EXISTING A.« SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 1.30 inches AREA..: 0.71 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 85.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.00 Acres CN....: 98.00 TcReach - Sheet L: 120.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.30 s:0.4800 PEAK RATE: 0.03 cfs VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min • 7/23/03 page 3 HILLMAN/MICHEL - USE CN=85 FOR MEADOW CONDITION SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 HYDROGRAPH SUMMARY PEAK TIME VOLUME HYD RUNOFF OF OF Contrib NUM RATE PEAK HYDRO Area cf-s min. cf\AcFt Acres 1 0.028 480 850 cf 0.71 2 0.100 480 2044 cf 0.71 3 0.228 480 4082 cf 0.71 4 0.063 480 1309 cf 0.71 5 0.143 480 2641 cf 0.71 6 0.277 480 4801 cf 0.71 11 0.027 570 1309 cf 0.71 12 0.115 500 2641 cf 0.71 13 0.223 490 4803 cf 0.71 • • 7/23/03 page 2 HILLMAN/MICHEL - USE CN=85 FOR MEADOW CONDITION SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 DISCHARGE STRUCTURE LIST COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No. C1 Description: COMBINATION DISCHARGE Structure: 01 Structure: Structure: N1 Structure: Structure: NOTCH WEIR ID No. N1 Description: NOTCH WEIR Weir Length: 0.2300 ft. Weir height (p): 1.0000 ft. Elevation : 109.25 ft. Weir Increm: 0.10 MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. 01 Description: ORIFICE Outlet Elev: 108.00 Elev: 107.50 ft Orifice Diameter: 1.0000 in. 7/23/03 page 1 ` HILLMAN/MICHEL - USE CN=85 FOR MEADOW CONDITION SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 -------------------------------------------------------- LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- < PEAK-> STORAGE MATCH <-------- DESCRIPTION --------- > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) PEAK cfs 2 YR 24 HR ................... 0.03 0.06 P1 Cl 108.98 11 116.92 0,03 10 YR 24 HR .................. 0.10 0.14 P1 Cl 109.52 12 235.86 0-11 100 YR 24 HR ................. 0.23 0.28 P1 Cl 110.07 13 339.27 0.22 • E ` DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone 425-334-9980 Fax: 425-334-7380 To: Marie Horrisor) 6 Edmo45Aprf'l Fax'. 42S; 7 71- 022/ Phone: +Zs -7-7 - ozzo. Re : M('chel H r Ilman Lot 3 3 1H 01 man I sq 1s -7 4A PZ W. Nn Chk-lt o2-s�5 ORWEWRY 6RID/N6r: LuT: 32s cY FILL: I I c Y TOTAL PR1 vE WA Y GRA D IKe%; LOTS 33 9 34 CuT: 424 cY FILL' 2 ss- 'C Drioemay Gcvddlrry RECEIVED APR 2 ? 2003 PERMIT COUNTER 2-2, 2oa3 Ca. iculaf('cins 1--of 34/Mrctief ts� 17 `71 'h- PL - W. P1Qn Chk * 03- 12o DR I E wA Y 6RUIN6 : GUT: 99 cY FILL: 244 cY DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC SEWER & WATER -FEASIBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT 53 STREET FILE DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone:425-334-9980 Fax: 425-334-7380 ROCKERY DESIGN FOR MICHEL CONSTRUCTION, INC. DATE: APRIL 7, 2003 SITE: 15915 74TH. PL. W. (LOT 34) EDMONDS, WA 1ma_11/81706 ' RED 1. APR 1 12003 PERMIT COUNTER 0 STREET FILE DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC - SEWER & WATER FEASIBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT 4-7 -03 gocker'y or Huh., m Er -head I OR GREATER i1 :� —�sorL CA P QUARRY ROCK 4" TO 3/4 S( 2 _ ^ROCKERY l 12 MIN. 1 /ETF1 I L 18" MAX. VVV THICKNESSMIN 07 OF HEIGHT OF ROCKERY a CHINK VOIDS, 6"DIA OR GREATER ' ��I �/� (BACK SIDE ONLY) / ! NO. 2 COARSE AGGREGATE PER SEC 9-03.1(3)C OF WSDOT STANDARD SPECS. (12" ABOVE PIPE) L{I- °°° 0000°° \ WRAP PIPE AND AGGREGATE WITH FILTER FABRIC / aococ\ (MARIFl 140X OR EQUAL) o \ 4" CIA. PERFORATED HIGH DENSITY POLYETHYLENE CORRUGATED PIPE WITH SMOOTH INTERIOR. CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN OR AS DIRECTED BY ENGINEER. UNDISTURBED SOIL OR COMPACTED FILL 'IJ couR5E ROCK AT 95% MAX DRY DENESTY NOTES: 1 ROCK FACINGS SHALL BE CONSTRUCTED BY INTERLOCKING THE ROCKS SO THAT EACH ROCK IS IN CONTACT WITH AT LEAST TWO OTHER ROCKS, AND WITH EACH ROCK HAVING A MINIMUM OF THREE BEARING SURFACES. 2 EACH ROCK SHALL BE LAID WITH A FLAT SURFACE ALONG THE ROCKERY AND WITH THE LONG DIMENSION HORIZONTAL 3 THE DENSITY OF ROCK MATERIAL SHALL BE A MINIMUM OF 160 POUNDS PER CUBIC FOOT. THE SIZE CATEGORIES FOR ROCK SHALL BE AS FOLLOWS: SIZE APPROXIMATE APPROXIMATE WEIGHT — LB. DIAMETER — INCHES 2—MAN ROCK 200 — 700 18 _ 28 3—MAN ROCK 700 - 2000 28 — 36 4—MAN ROCK 2000 — 4000 36 — 48 4 THE CONTRACTOR SHALL USE THE ROCK SIZES AS SET FORTH IN THE ABOVE.TABLE AND SHALL INSURE A DISTRIBUTION OF ROCK SIZES WITH THE LARGEST ROCKS ON THE BOTTOM AND PROGRESSIVELY SMALLER ON TOP. 5 VOIDS IN THE ROCKERY FACE SHALL NOT BE GRATER THAN 50 SQUARE INCHES FOR ROCKS OVER 3 FEET HIGH AND 36 SQUARE INCHES FOR ROCKS UNDER 3 FEET HIGH. IImavl MkhS- 74t'- 'PL W. Wer;) 7, 2c03 o c.k�ry Des ig y). Ca I Cu )Ct+ i o n s . 7So lb WeiSyrt of backf tl slope per- LF. � c �y'• zx s X zsx 120 =So 16 . '3 �A2::� 3 � 2 6-2Z p I"_-Z Ca w� 12" (earth 1hrv5+ Pet) LF of wall / Surcharge (ood reso 1 pant For 2 e 1 bockPi'!f slope 0 for, - - force 6ntei-Twe P �cf,on � F iTi c f i ve oC i n f erns ( s o d fr i c f iom= use 0=4o' Unif weight olf soy f w, = 120pc-C Assume no hydros�,c Pressure 6-C h ind wo 1 �. S t es m is 100, d (r) hof. token M-6 cornsiderafron. Cq l cc�(af� coy i ct'enf �`F acfive eor- h pre- ssure Coss Coss - casZS - co52�?S Ca Rant': the Frmul�r� C-OSS Ca= .289 • Ca 1Gu I«� bac�� I�I Carth �h rusi- I 2 -fit per LFo-� wo G I culafe +Mru5t �irom 2-'1 baakf I I 51opC P = CQ w-'= . 285.f.t 750 f: YZ :. wa it Hi(Imo✓1 /miChO- %4ib' PL Ind }'�, I %, 2003 I 2 Oef-erm i ne Stab 1 i of Rockery QV erturo in Momerif p - mo = t P J %Ib 6)(2 + i(2)1Ib)( 2 D Is" 2w lb z - M411 Tao lb 3 Mari A e, Zf .m&n De+er► (ne Weight o� &k,eiy Per LF o III .2 - Mari Rock 2 x Zoo = 3 3. 33)b 3 - Mon Roc. k -12 x 700 = 300 1b �.8 - Mai ROC1 IZX2000, 36 C014POgE tT"'WEIGHT -W x - Mr of w4 LL 1b FT ft-lb . (I33.3)t 300+-fo66.6 = 1233 x 2 - -= 246(o Fqc+or a Sq(e Agct(AS4 OUeriurnin9 ; 24 - - ok N CL LD LA GUARDRAI m Q 5q' 112" OIA. GALV. EOLTS TYP. TIIAbEP, GUARDRAIL 60LTEO THROUGH TFEATEO TIMBEP. P05T5 (TYP.) GKG TREATED T[MHP F05T5 - 8' 0. C. (TYP.) 1% SLOFE (TYP.) CONCRETE FIEF FOOTING TYF. L DETAIL SCALE 1/2"=1'-O" m 0 M O C N w m Bearing Capacity Many soil reports and building codes tend to dictate maximum bearing pressures that may be placed on certain soil types for sake of simplicity with little regard for the specific structure involved and the relevant theory of soil mechanics being applied to the site soil conditions. A typical example of this is the "3,000 psf' maximum bearing pressure requirement unilaterally being applied to all structures, even though the bearing capacity of soils increase with footing width and depth due to increasing confining pressure and stability. This maximum bearing pressure issue can be a "compliance" or interpretation problem when applied to larger reinforced soil structures which place high earth loads on the foundation due to the height of fill involved. A 20' tall soil structure calculates over 3,000 psf applied bearing pres- sure yet calculates high bearing capacity safety factors when the site specific geometry and soil conditions are evaluated. Hemb M Bearing Pressure Vertical Forces, R = EW+ EFv Applied Pressure, R 6v = L Bearing Capacity quit = cfNc +HembYfNq + 0.5(L-2e)YfNy This term may be omitted 6 if the soil in front of wall W �/ �/ W is to be ignored. Foundation Soil v R L-2e� L �f - shear strength ct - cohesion yf -unit weight Typical Wall Section Note: Bearing capacity can be reduced by up to 50% if toe is sloping or below water table. Factor of Safety FS quit 2.0-2.5 be = 6v Note: Factor of safety for bearing capacity is typically 3.0 for rigid structures but is reduced to 2.0 (NCMA) or 2.5 (AASHTO) for flexible soil structures. Bearing Capacity Factors (thru Vesic) �f Nc N N �f Nc N N 200 14.83 6.40 5.39 28° 25.80 14.72 16.72 22° 16.88 7.82 7.13 300 30.14 18.40 22.40 240 19.32 9.60 9.44 32° 35.49 23.18 30.22 260 1 22.25 11.85 12.54 1 340 1 42.16 1 29.44 1 41.06 Vesic/Meyerhof Equations : Nq = entan� tan2(45+ �/2) , Nc = (Nq - 1) cot(0) , Ny = 2(Nq +1) tan(0) Backfill Soil Specification The successful performance of reinforced soil wall structures is largely attributable to the quality of the soils involved and the contractor's experience with soils and structural fill construction.. Many wall performance problems can be traced back to the quality, strength, moisture, and den- sity of the in -situ or compacted Backfill soils. The US Bureau of Public Roads introduced the first soil, classification system in 1928 attempting to classify soils based on engineering behavior with designations of A-1, A-2, etc. After this sys- tem had been use for about 15 years, AASHO (AASHTO) reviewed and adopted a similar sys- tem with designations of A-1-a, A-2-4, etc. In 1952, the Unified Soil Classification System (USC) with designations of GW, SM, ML, CL, etc. was adopted by the US Corps of Engineers and the Bureau of Reclamation. The chart references below providea quick summary of the "Cr granular" materials for use in structures: "Granular" Backfill Soil Parameters Group Backfill Top Size #4 Sieve #40 Sieve #200 Sieve Plasticity Liquid Classification 100% passing % passing % passing % passing Index (PI) Limit (LL) AASHTO MSE Select 4" max 60% 15% 6 - AASHTO A-1-a 3" (tested) - 30% 15% 6 - AASHTO A-I-b 3" (tested) - 50% 25% 6 - AASHTO A-2-4 3" (tested), - n/a 35% 10 40 max AASHTO A-2-6 3" tested n/a 35% 40 40 max ASTM-USC GW,GP 50% - 5% NP NP ASTM-USC GM,GC 50% - 12-50% 4-20 50 max ASTM-USC SW.SP - 50% - 5% NP NP ASTM-USC SM SC 50% 12-50% 4-20 50 max ASTM-USC ML,CL - 50% "A" line SO max The amount of fine material (fine sand, silt and clay) as defined by the #40 and #200 sieves is generally a good indicator of favorable engineering and construction properties. The properties of the fine material as defined by its Atterberg limits (PI and LL) has also been a good indicator of a soil's engineering and construction properties. These soils properties should be clearly defined and limited by specification for any wall installation that is counted. on to serve a struc- tural purpose such as supporting a parking lot, building or roadway. Recommended Backfill Parameters (Geogrid) Designation Top Size #40 Sieve #200 Sieve Plasticity Liquid 100% passing %n passing % passing Index (PI) Limit (LL) Select Backfill 2" 60% 15% 6 - Semi - Select Backfill 2" - 35% 10 40 Tolerable Silt/Clay , 2" - 65% 20 40 Unacceptable Silt/Clay 2" - 65% > 20 > 50 Note: It is easy to consider poor site soils for economic reasons but is not so easy to construct with such soils nor to expect high performance from marginal soils even though a design can be done on paper. The Owner should be advised and make informed choices regarding these issues. Compaction of Soils Proper placement and compaction of soils is essential to the successful performance of retaining wall structures. Post construction settlement is an obvious concern with poorly compacted mate- rials as well as excessive lateral wall movement and/or insufficient shear strength to perform as intended. Soils must be compacted in lifts to achieve maximum soil shear strength and validate the design. The chart below indicates a relationship between peak shear strength and soil density for cohesionless granular materials with no plastic fines as shown. As the relative density of the material is increased, significant gains are realized in shear strength. Therefore, it is necessary that levels•of compaction and lift thickness be specified and obtained during construction to insure proper performance. 45° 0 40° U r 35° L ate, C w 30° 0 tw 25° - • Re�aU `,v - � s 75% cap �w ' `SAf $o ' — 2$ Approximate correlation for cohesionless materials with- out plastic fines. 20° 80 90 100 110 120 130 140 150 Dry Unit Weight (pcf) Correlations of Strength Characteristics for Granular Soils (Ref. from NAVFAC DM 7.01-1986) Granular soils are much more tolerant to variations in the placement and compaction process than the finer silts and clays which require close monitoring of moisture content and compaction procedures. The standard soil density specification for the structural fill behind Keystone walls is indicated below. Moisture content is limited to optimum moisture to avoid wall misalignment during construction due to overly saturated soils being compacted behind the wall facing. Test Criteria Minimum % Moisture % ASTM Method AASHTO Method Standard Proctor Modified Proctor 95% 90-92% +0, -3 +0, -3 D 698 D 1557 T-99 T-180 0 • Connection Strength The connection capacity between geosynthetic soil reinforcement and a modular concrete wall unit is a complex interaction that can only be determined by laboratory testing. NCMA pro- posed a test method, SRWU-1, which outlines the accepted practice for connection testing and evaluation of the results which is utilized by Keystone. A schematic of the connection testing setup and laboratory developed load curves are shown below. 0 J c. nnection c Load c. c 0 C� Top View Normal Foce Connection -- Load Side View Connection Test Setup -Load at 3/ Peak Load Failure Stress/strain plot i3/4" Deformation Displacement Load test at one normal force .0 . c� � /Peak Load Plot c --""-- Max O 6 • .— /3/4" Load Plot _4 — Max d --0 v ----0� c c � conn = y + N tanA < Max v Normal Force Connection Load Plots Full laboratory connection testing has been performed with Keystone Standard and Compac units and geosynthetic soil reinforcement products by Tensar, Mirafi, Stratagrid, Huesker, and Amoco. This data is utilized in each wall design to determine the maximum permissible connection value that can be utilized at each reinforcement level. . The larger Standard unit has considerably more connection capacity than the smaller Compac ` unit and should be utilized where maximum design safety and high performance is required. Connection capacity is a limiting factor in many taller wall designs and should be carefully eval- uated to conform with published design standards. ( k�... ( iy , "fir. • GRAVITY WALL SCHIMA11C INISHED GRADE KEYSTONE UNITS — --\ BACKSLOPE OR SURCHARGE t � ;- •`.':`.':';,;::;`':::•`.: LOW PERMEABILITY SOIL •:; ;:;;.:;:.;•.. RETAINED SOIL ZONE WALL HEIGHT :.:•:..::,:::•:::.,.: UNIT CORE FILL car. LIMIT OF EXCAVATION EMBEDMENT .°+A►` DRAINAGE COLLECTION PIPE (IF REQUIRED) LEVELING PAD NOTES: > Wall Height (H) is the total height from top to bottom. p Minimum wall embedment is 6" (150mm) or Height/20. > Subsurface soils must.,be capable of,supporting wall'system., 0. Unit core fill is 3/4" (20mm) clean crushed stone. } Leveling pad is crushed stone base material. 1> All backfill materials are; compacted to 95% max. density. I ► Finished grade must provide positive drainage. t> The symbol 5•0' ,,indicates, location and length of geogrid as measured from.the,, connection pins to the end of the geogrid. 1 Th. inf—lion m Wned r.-i' h. bean wmpbd by Keystone• Rmairinp Wal Systeun, Inc. eM to the best of our knowbCpe, a=ffWY�.M' mPese7ds do Keystone Prods Ina in Ow _ - - epphaSUM ^1.wl = funded. Wml dtamhstian of the 6116- aWty for the m I I wwe-p—mily of ttho Ip. Soumrol olasip eM eneyeis ;,i.. crleh be W med by a geed enpi— P'( O 1997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS. WC. M—poln. kt— • (612) 997 1040 • (612)697 3L%1= • 8' Min. Low Permeable Soil Keystone Cap Unit 8' Min, Low Permeable Sal Keystone Standard Reinforced Soil Keystone Standard Unit Unit 8' . Low Perrtrable Soil Keystone Cap Unit • Re�Morced Sal . 24- Unit Drainage Fill 24' Unit Drainage Fill Fj ' (3l4' Crushed = I (3/4' Crushed = I Keystare lord Unit Rods or Stare) C • _ Rock a' Stare Drainage Ftll p Retained Soil �. ., 32 o Retained Soil .•.. o -Oe Retained Shc t Rock or Stone) _ Grid Length. Grid Length 8 - Finished Grade - Finished Grade Finished Grade Approxima te .; .._ . Approximate Approximate Umds o LimitsM .." Limits of of Ekravalon ' Excavation - Excavation - l - 1 4' Perforated PVC UnreiMorced Concrete 4' Perforated PVC / Umei'n ad Concrete 4' Perforated Drainage Tile Unre6dorced Concrete a Drainage Tile (If Required) Foundation SWI - or Crushed Store Leveling Pad Drainage Tile (If RegWred) or Crushe a Foundation Sol Leveling Pad (If Regal Crushed Stone LevelingPad Foundation Typical Reinforced Wall Section _Typical Reinforced Wall Section T ical Gravity Wall Se n Standard Unit - Near Vertical Setback Staraard Un4 - 1' Setback Standard Unit - 1' Setback 8' Min Low PenneaUle Sal 'wr KS 8' Min. Low Permeable Sod Keystone Unit General Notes: Wrap 4' Perforated PVC Drainage Tile in 3/4' Aggregate and Filter Fabric at Toe. if Required. . _ 9 Keystone Ke a Compac NO T • , f1.g Un4 I ` v Rainier 1 24' Drainage Fi0 Reinforced ' 24' Unit Drainage Fill (3/4- Coshed (3/4' Crushed Rock or Stone) . Rock or Stone) 8' Min. Low Permeable Soil Keystone Cap Unit Retainetl Sol � 32- a / Keystone Compac Unit Retained Sol 1 G rigm Grid Length - lily Grade Finished Grade fit., '1 Finished Grade al = Approximate Approximate Unit Orei 0 24' Limits of .:'.. a .-...' .. .. _. ... _ Limits of ..'. - (3/4'Crushed Excavation I' ° Fcavalon - RonA or Stone) APpmx is 4' Perforated PVC Urc cad Concrete 4- Pert ad PVC Unreinforoed Concrete - of Exca Unreinforced crate or Drainage Tile (If Required) Foundaton SoU or Cru Stone Leveling Pad Dram a Tile (If Rect red) or Cfushed Stone Foundation Soil Leveling Pad Crushed Ston eveling Pad 4' P oreted PVC Drainage Tile (if Requred) Fourgatron Sol Typical Reinforced Wall Section Typical Reinforced Wall Section Typical Gravity Wall Section Compac Unit - Near Vertical Setback Compac Unit - V Setback -Compac Unit - t' Setback CepVKpM 3001 Keypwn neYiiq Wal9yrtmv om4n b,ar lrkaml abolay d,M KEYSTONE waa smcmn ory. Etla�nl abMy. F,cmN� ME ml YMM m buKWM mtl ab0e atabYy b Sie No. Deb Rwblm ee4ro1 BY Tqo Typical Wall Section OW: _ Ti�ma, R,a, xxxx�ao nRgeKeY Amin ma MaYwO mellmbb M mslutlba eNW pufr d mgYbY cewenn m I�VSTOIF'a apedlutlm mr Ob paleG �� � Rmlect Before W. TN.a,..n,bcdn„ ,wab.,. ,ml.d«n•. rk,v,M•, AwmW COWANY L9"' Keystone Retaining Wall Systems °0'00x 8v1� aaeplMp mb ooc�mee aoea ao b anxbaKa eN eVeea tls11 elwl ne M qumam.nde nn.abme.amm,.a.man o.m..va uu W 1wN Sbeex xvw+web. xei ss+% jTyplcal Wall Details e.m o.n. KeyaWw RebHq Wet SW,ens, Oc V5f2Bi.1M0 No 9oJe t SLOPE T TOTAL RETAINED SOIL TYPE HEIGHT NEAR VERTICAL WALL (Minimum setback per unit) >STANDARD UNITS Soil Type Level . 4HAV 3H:1V 21HAV Sand/Gravel 5.2' (1.6m) 47 (1.5m) 4.6' (1.4m) 4.1' (1.2m) Silty Sand 47 (1. 4m) 4.3' (1.3m) 4.1' (1.2m) 3.6' (1.1m) Silt[Lean Clay, 4.4' (1.3m) 3.9' (1.2m) 3.7' (1.1m) 2.9' (0.9m) C XPAC UNITS w kc - 0- Soil Type L I 4HAV 3H:1V 2HAV "2.3' Sand/Gravel (0.9m) 2 6' �� 0.8m) 0 8m) f� (0. rn) (0.7m) Silty Sand .8m) 2 . 4' m) (07 3 ' .(0. 2.01 (0.6m) See�n Clay 2,4' (0.7m) 2. 1' (0.6m) 2.0' (0.6m) 1.7' (0.5m) iJ 1 SLOPE TOTAL TOTAL I", . RETAINED HEIGHT ONE INCH SETBACK WALL (1 min. setback per unit) STANDARD UNITS Soil Type Z! I 4H:1V 140'�w < 2H:1V Sand/Gravel 61. N (2.1 -*"' 9m) 5.9' (1.8m) 5.3' (1.6m) Silty Sand" '11 (1.9m) 5. (1.7m 5.2 .,(11.6m) 4.4' (1.3m) SilUL lay 5.3' (1.6m) 4.5' (1.4m) ('1'2& 3.2' 0. 0m) �OMPAC UNITS Soil Type Level 4 - 3H:1V 2H:1V Sand/Gravel 3. M) 3.4' (1.0m) 3.3' (1.0m) 2.9' (0.9m) Silt S Sa� y 3. (1.0rn 3.0' (0 9m) 2.9' (0.9m) 2.4' (0.7m) Kilftean Clay I 3 0'0') ( 9M k(O(O 2.5' .8m) 2. 1' (0.6m) Notes: Calculations assume 6 unit weight of',120 lbs/cf (-19kN/sqm) for.all,soil types. Assumed'f,,angles for earth pressure calculations are: Sand/Gravel=34*, Silly Sand='301, and Sandy Sikean Clay=26Non critical structures, with SF>1.5. No surcharge loadings are included. Surcharges or special loading conditions will reduce maximum wall heights. Sliding calculations assume a 6", (150mm) crushed stone levelling pad as compacted foundation material. TheJnformation provided .isfor preliminary design,use, only. A qualified professional should be consulted. Keystone accepts no liability for the improper use of these tables. The inbrmaam cc#a W thtnin hm been -pled by KeYgone* Retaining Wal System, Inc. and W the bat dour kr*wWp, a =* repress- the Kar,:=m in am appl-®tort which w lhm=gd F.1 t. the .11. "'M 0 " ="`7MP"==dW = M the lap- 01tiv W 8:�Oafnd wwltw hn W W-d by . q-MW -p-, 0 1997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS WC. Mvevft. Mw� - (612) 897-1040 - 161Z 697 3&%[W E KEYSTONE STANDARD UNIT REINFORCEMENT DESIGN CHARTS No Surchar e o s- H Reinforced Soil Zone I - f �L3 if 250 psf Surcharge . ..''' Reinforced Sod Zone NEAR, 340SAND/ . NEAR 30° 71 SILTY NEAR 260 SILT/ VERTICAL. GRAVEL VERTICAL SAND VERTICAL. LEAN CLAY Geogrid Placement Chart > Geogrid Placement Chart > Geogrid Placement Chart (15m) (180 (18m) Height 4.3' 5.7' 7.0' 8.3' 9 7' (1.3m) : (1.7m) (2.1 m) (2.5m) (3.Om f> Geogrid Placement Chart (2.0m) (23rt)I (1 5,,,) (18.) (2.Om) t21rtd (2 11.0' 1 Height 4.3' 5 7' 7.0' 8.3' 9.7' 11.0' (3.4m) (1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) (3.Om) ,,(3.4m) Geogrid Placement Chart w _ w m m w O w Height 4.3' 5 7' 7.0' 8.3' 9.7' 11.0' (1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1 m) (2.5m) (3.Om) (3.4m) ra Geogrid Placement Chart Reinforced Sod Zone I 10Fi _ VIM taw m tf✓r tt� A w w . w wm w® w4>o w w w w w® w `gym w Heigh 4.3' 5.7' 7.0' 8.3' 9.7' (-3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) _ (3Om) (> Geogrid Placement Chart t4 � e \ (1 5m) t2 Om) (2 lm) (2 3m) (2 6,,1) (2 9m) Height 4.3' 5 7' 7.0'_-...83----9.7' 11.0' - (1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) (3.0m) (34m) (> Geogrid Placement Chart iw w_ OEM w w 11.0, .: Height 4.3' 5.7' 7.0 8.3' 9.7' 11.0' (3.4m) (1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) (3.0m) (3.4m) © Geogrid Placement Chart (1.5m) (17m) (1 Brij @.Om) 1(23"WJ (1.5m) (18m) @.Om) (2.1m) (23m) (26m) HelghT 4.3' - 5.7' 7.0' 8.3' 9 7' 11�Heigh 4.3' S.T 7.0' 8.3' 9.7'97.0'(1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) (3.0m) (3.4(1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) (3.0m) .: (3.4m) _ i! .Engineer should evaluate design for poor soils and hackslopes 50, (1.6m) (2.1m) -� Height 4.3' 5.7' 7.0' -- 8.3 _ 9.7' _ 11.0, (1.3m) (1.7m) (2.1m) (2.5m) (3.Om) (3.4m) • • Base Leveling Pad Notes: Standard Una cap unit Width, 18, Width 18'' 1. The leveling pad is to be constructed +Depth 21 12' * De th. 10 1/2*of crushed stone or 2,000 psit He, N 8' HePght: 4' unreinforced concrete * Weight. 1251bs *Weight 50 lbs � .:_ � ;'!• ; .. ;. �' 1 I - 2. The base foundation is to be approved - by the site geotechninrior l engineer p 4. Una (2) - 4' Cap Units or ., : 1 .' ... • . Standard Elevation to placement of the leveling pad (1) - 8' Cap Unit 8' Standard ' . Crushed Rods or Unreinfometl Concrete 8' Step Leveling Pad Unit ® Elevation Exravabon 71/4'—{ Umits o e o, Umt Face 6' Crushed Rock or J �� i36' Unremforced Concrete Leveling Pad �' Section Standard Plan Standard Unit/Base Pad Isometric Section View Leveling Pad Detail Top of Wall Steps Standard Unit *Dimensions 8 Weght May Vary by Region *Dimensions May Vary by Region Note: Note: Note: 3' 0} Sod Fdl 5 Reg 'retl 1. Check with manufacturer spec.0catlons Between F Il s R qu Geognd on coned Wectw of odentabon for for Proper a geognd to obtam proper strength Ancrroreg 1. For pipes larger than 24', a concrete collar Trey be cast around Pipe for ease al construction and appearance. 1. Auger through geogrid layers. 2. Backfill or concrete guardrail Piece AddNonal Pieces of Geogdd When Angle Faceeas 20' _ _ ".;.`; -• a'«,.. {{ t 4 ' E It j cr ir !u c Concrete Collar Saw Cut Units to Fit (6 applicable) Whin 12' of Pipe Control Joints asi required P� m place. 3' Mm. Guardren Post Geo 9 lid is to be Placed on Level eacainand Extended over the Fiberglass Pms. Race Next Unit Pull Grid Taught and Badddl. Stake as required. <•i 'r'"""•' '` ' f f a �,y'+•S-•�-�• �. w Minimum Wall Radius: Inside Curve: 4.0' (at bottom of wall) Outside Curve: 4Z (at top of wall) Scour Protection as Required. " Use Rip Rap or Concrete Slab Badcfill or Concrete Keystone Standard Unit in Outlet Area. Geogrid Installation on Curves Grid & Pin Connection Typical Pipe Outlet Detail Typical Guardrail Detail C—V. —1 K.r.r.. n>ae�r nw m.m.lammao. �[. StONE wal.m,mmaw. Erane .moor. rawry ea.a omm. io raverar.ra cow •mmr * o. m.mr*m wmr m. nm�.a m.,. ammmcmn.re *corona near* cmam m xf rsrorf....mdea, m.mr oeka Na o.m a.wr. IM II}nens09y. Tn¢ Typical Straight Face Standard Unit Details IMh ,ti<,xxva cnwd By nmlxt aapa ra: ....r,rea.,r,ar.,.ar,�re,m.,..,,r,.M rsegrp ur avms. am w r m.bmce.re.pr. ar A am M a x.r.m�. wmrxe w.c snmm. im. Aeawr�rcakauh' w. w Idn Sa.a uumrnws C01A Keystone Retaining Wall Systems Typical Wall Details �osd. 6 Reinforced Soil Walls Reinforced soil walls are composite structures which utilize structural Keystone units and geosynthetic soil reinforcement to create a stable mass that can be designed and constructed to much greater heights than simple gravity walls. These structures are commonly referred to as MSE (mechanically stabilized earth) structures or reinforced soil SRW's (segmental retaining walls). Note that only the Keystone Standard and Compac units are designed to properly accom- modate earth reinforcement and provide facial stability and connection strength for these larger and more critical structures. Reinforced walls rely on the mass of the composite structure to provide external stability (sliding, overturning, etc.) and the strength of the soil reinforcement, connections, and Keystone units to be internally stable. The principal modes of failure observed in reinforced wall struc- tures are: 1) Inadequate soil reinforcement length and spacing to prevent internal/external failure. 2) Use of poor quality soils and/or improper placement and compaction of soils. 3) Inadequate surface runoff or internal soil drainage provisions (ie: groundwater). 4) Tiered walls not being designed and constructed as complex soil structures. Cracks Cracks — ---- i'j Bulge or ---- �i' Bulge �� / lateral then ' \Slip plane movement i �./ Slip plane failure / :. ----J -----/ Internal/External Tiered Wall Failure Mechanism Failure Mechanism Reinforced walls are considerably more complex than simple gravity walls and must be designed accordingly. The soil strength and stability component of the design takes on much greater importance as the structures become taller requiring more attention to site specific soils informa- tion, proper design considerations, and contractor quality assurance provisions. Gravity Walls Gravity walls are anycoherent structure that rely solely on its mass and geometry to resist the earth pressure forces acting on it. All Keystone landscaping wall products and structural wall units not utilizing soil reinforcement are considered gravity walls by definition. Modular gravity walls rely on weight, depth, wall batter, and inter -unit shear strength to achieve stability. Larger units with more depth provide greater stability and can achieve greater wall heights as indicated in the gravity wall design charts in the Keystone Construction Manual. The principal mode of failure observed in a modular gravity wall is overturning. Overturning failure occurs for a few simple and obvious reasons: 1), A gravity wall is constructed taller than it should be for the size of unit utilized and the design conditions at the wall location. 2) A gravity wall is constructed over poor foundation soils or a poor leveling pad and post construction settlement causes the wall to lean and eventually overturn. 3) Additional surcharge from parking or a structure is placed directly behind the wall. 4) Combinations of the above items. Overtuming Weight of Wall .4k­—Earth Pressure Pivot Simple Overturning Overturning Pivot ssure Settlement and Overturning Special attention must be given to the foundation soils and leveling pad construction when con- structing gravity walls since the foundation provides much of the wall's resistance to overturning. Simple overturning failure can be avoided by limiting wall heights to safe working heights for the size of Keystone unit selected and avoiding additional surcharge conditions. A simple "rule of thumb" is to restrict wall heights to no greater than three times the unit depth unless referring to design charts for site specific design recommendations. This "rule of thumb" leads to the fol- lowing rough guidelines: Unit Depth Max Height Approx. Courses Garden Wall 9" 27" 7 courses Intermediate 12" 36" 5 courses Compac Unit 12" 36" 4 courses + cap Standard Unit 21" 63" 7 courses + cap 2000 Keystone Retaining Will Sysmms Equivalent Fluid Pressure It is common for structural and geotechnical engineers to define the active earth pressure loading for simple retaining wall structures in terms of equivalent fluid pressure such as 40 pcf for ease of calculation. Many design codes define minimum equivalent fluid pressures as a means for establishing a simple retaining wall design criteria without site specific analysis. Since an active earth pressure calculation without considering surcharges or complex loadings yields a simple triangular earth pressure distribution, the'similarity to a fluid pressure analysis at some equiva- lent weight is reasonable. Coulomb K = sing (a+m) a sm2u sm(u-8)1t+ s�n(o.al sm(b-Iq 72 s,n(a-R) sin(u e Active Earth Pressure Pa=0.5YH2 Ka Rankine _ 1�1 = cos1+COV - cos2pcost$ ah = lYx.�(l+a) H a cusp r cos2p -cos2� Active Earth Pressure Equiv Fluid Pressure —Pa=0.5YE, H2 6h =.YEF H YEF is assumed fluid pressure weight Equivalent Fluid Pressure The limitation of an equivalent fluid pressure analysis is that it is independent of structure geom- etry such as wall batter and tiered wall configurations, does not permit the proper analysis of sur- charge conditions such as broken back slopes and dead/live load combinations, and it avoids complicated stability analysis conditions such as compound failure planes and global stability. The benefit of equivalent fluid pressure analysis is that it typically creates a easily understood minimum design loading regardless of structure geometry and assumed soil properties. For example, a heavily battered retaining wall design (10°+) utilizing high assumed soil strengths (� = 36°) may result in very low calculated earth pressures (equiv. fluid pressure = 20 pcf) which may be unrealistic and depends. upon very favorable conditions to perform adequately.. Use of soil cohesion can also create unrealistically low calculated soil pressure. Equivalent fluid pressure (pcf) and wall design criteria is compared below. Note the significant variance depending on soils strength, wall batter, backslope geometry, and design method. Rankine -Vertical Coulomb-1:8 Batter Backslope > Level 4:1 3:1 11 Level 4:1 3:1 2:1 340 34 37 . 39 49 25 29 32 39 oq 300 40 44 48 65 30 36 40 52 260 47 53 59 90 .36 45 50 90 Note: Equivalent fluid pressure based on soil weighing 120 pcf. Low angles and steep backslopes create high pressures and do not permit equation solution to earth pressure. Connection Strength The proper evaluation of the structural connection between geosynthetic soil reinforcement and modular block retaining wall facing system has been a significant design consideration since the publication of the 1993 National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) Design Manual for Segmental Walls and the American Association of State Highway and Transportations Official's (AASHTO) Standard Specifications for the design of mechanically stabilized earth (MSE) struc- tures. Structural and civil engineers have become acutely aware of the need to properly evaluate "connections" as a result of the Hyatt walkway collapse in Kansas City some years ago and no longer neglect these more mundane structural calculations. The authors of these "state of the practice" documents recognize that the design of a structural system must be comprehensive and include an analysis of all its structural components, especially those items not easily determined such as the connection strength between a geosynthetic reinforcement and the wall facing system and wall stability during construction loading. These documents require that the connection strength between a specific geosynthetic reinforce- ment and specific wall facing system be evaluated in a laboratory for its ultimate strength and strain characteristics under conditions that simulate the field installed condition. The load capac- ity of the connection at a specific location is compared to the maximum calculated load in the soil reinforcement and a factor of safety is calculated. This connection strength calculation is made at each reinforcement level and a minimum safety factor of 1.5 against rupture must be maintained. The typical result of the connection strength analysis in taller walls is that the geosynthetic rein- forcement to modular wall unit connection controls the wall design process and limits the maxi- mum tensile load that wall system reinforcement can accept at various levels. The designer must then utilize stronger soil reinforcement or closer vertical spacing of the soil reinforcement to resist or lower the tensile loads in each element in order to maintain acceptable connection safety factors in accordance with published design standards. Since the connection strength analysis can be a limiting design factor and require additional soil reinforcement costs to satisfy the required design standards, those not skilled in retaining wall design sometimes ignore, neglect, or down play the connection strength evaluation as a means of reducing cost, increasing competitive position, or otherwise hiding a potential structural limita- tion in the proposed.retaining wall system. This practice is not professional and leads to struc- ture -designs that provide less than the required levels of design safety and potential "negligence" claims in the eyes of the legal community when there are performance problems. Keystone Retaining Wall Systems has laboratory tested all major geosynthetic soil reinforcement types with the Keystone Standard and Compac wall units and will continue to evaluate the con- nection strength requirements of each structure as required by good engineering practice and published design standards. The connection strength evaluation is an integral part of the design process and can not be neglected. systenis 7. ..E� ;� } . k €, ... • t w_ ",c a li CONVEX CURVES i INSTALLATION PROCEDURES: i f> Follow standard installation instructions for preparation.of sub'grade and leveling pad. (� Place base course units with a small.gap between adjacent units..Thisgap will close�with the placement of each additional course of Keystone® units as the. units -batter-and;converge toward the point of radius. The rate of closure is controlled by the severity -of the'batter (i.e -a 8.80- batter will close. more quickly than a near vertical batter). A maximum of 1/2" to 3/4",(15-'20mm) gap is- recommended for'best visual appearance! To achieve this, the distance between the pir :holes on adjacent first'd urse units should, not' exceed 12" (30cm), on center. Follow standard installationinstructions` for back filling and placement of additional courses. ( If geogrid reinforcement- is used, refer to manufacturers recommendations for,proper placement of this material along convex curves. Depending on wall height; radius and:batter-selection.some bind in between'units may occur. If this prohibits proper placement of ;additional units; try one of the following suggestions. • Trim unit corners using either a masonry cold chisel or concrete saw. • Push units back and realign. Re-drill"new pinholes:asneeded using'a 5/8 (15mm) masonry bit. f, _ t PLACE UNITS EDGE TO EDGE ON - / STRAIGHT SECTION I GAPPING BETWEEN UNITS. SEE OF WALLS TO O Y ° O O a ° O O� INSTRUCTIONS. ACHIEVE PROPER D ° �. ° O �. UNIT SPACING. day >0" 12° (30cm) MAX. PIN SPACING •. ta' 0, PINHOLE ° POSITION ALL UNITS BATTER OR STEP BACK TOWARD THE POINT OF RADIUS. THE AMOUNT OF BATTER IS DETERMINED BY THE PIN POSITION. NOTE: Minimal to zero gapping will be required with a near vertical batter. TRIM UNITS HERE. SEE INSTRUCTIONS. Tea mrormam° °eemeea —e — —..pled by KBgE W RBMnng Wal SymMM nc and 0 9e bast of am MOw'WP Imardit m —ft am Key produd use in Me ePM=. wlern am W6ealed Foml I191L —I- of the sW- e'W'/ b Me ue °Wm "M and b aoemn d eae me Me Ida e6WWWY d am oam Se{I:b12I aevgi and mieysc Ihe9 tb plrlaaaeE ty a Qu"W m0ma. 01997 KEYSTGNE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS. INC. Mum". Mmnemte • (612) 891.1919 • (612) 8919959-tm Section I MODULAR CONCRETE RETAINING WALL PART 1: GENERAL 1.01-Description A. Work shall consist of furnishing and construction of a KEYSTONE Retaining Wall System or equal in accordance with these specifications and in reasonably close conformity with the lines, grades, design, and dimensions shown on the plans. B. Work includes preparing foundation soil, furnishing and installing leveling pad, unit drainage fill and backfill to the lines and grades shown on the construction drawings. C. Work includes furnishing and installing geogrid soil reinforcement of the type, size, location, and lengths designated on the construction drawings. 1.02 Related Sections A. Section 02100 - Site Preparation B. Section 02200 -Earthwork 1.03 Reference Documents A. American Society for Testing and Materials (ASTM) 1. ASTM C-1372 Specification for Segmental Retaining Wall Units 2. ASTM D-422 Particle Size Analysis 3. ASTM D-698 Laboratory Compaction Characteristics of Soil -Standard Effort 4. ASTM D-4318 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit and Plasticity Index of Soils 5. ASTM D-4595 Tensile Properties of Geotextiles - Wide Width Strip 6. ASTM D-5262 Unconfined Tension Creep Behavior of Geosynthetics 7. ASTM D-3034 Polyvinyl Chloride Pipe (PVC) 8. ASTM D-1248 Corrugated Plastic Pipe B. Geosynthetic Research Institute (GRI) 1. GRI-GG4 Determination of Long Tern Design Strength of Geogrids 2: GRI-GG5 Determination of Geogrid (soil) Pullout C. National Concrete Masonry Association (NCMA) 1. NCMA SRWU-1 Test Method for Determining Connection Strength of SRW 2. NCMA SRWU-2 Test Method for Determining Shear Strength of SRW 1.04 Submittals/Certification A. Contractor shall submit a Manufacturer's certification, prior to start of work, that the retaining wall system components meet the requirements of this specification and the structure design. Standard Page 1 811 /01 B. Contractor shall submit construction drawings and design calculations for the retaining wall system prepared and stamped by a Professional Engineer registered in the state of the project. The engineering designs, techniques, and material evaluations shall be in accordance with the Manufacturer's Design Manual, NCMA Design Guidelines For Segmental Retaining Walls, or the AASHTO Standard Specifications for Highway Bridges, Section 5.8 (whichever is applicable to designer). C. Contractor shall submit a test report documenting strength of specific modular concrete unit and geogrid reinforcement connection. The maximum design tensile load of the geogrid shall be equal to the laboratory tested ultimate strength of geogrid / facing unit connection at a maximum normal force limited by the "Hinge Height" of the structure divided by a safety factor of 1.5. The connection strength evaluation shall be performed in accordance with NCMA test method SRWU-1. 1.05 Quality, Assurance A. Contractor shall submit certification, prior to start of work, that the retaining wall system (modular concrete units and specific geogrid): 1) has been successfully utilized on a minimum of five (5) similar projects, i.e., height, soil fill types, erection tolerances, etc.; and 2) has been successfully installed on a minimum of 1 million (1,000,000) square feet of retaining walls. B. Contractor shall submit a list of five (5) previously constructed projects of similar size and magnitude by the wall installer where the specific retaining wall system has been constructed successfully. Contact names and telephone numbers shall be listed for each project. C. Contractor shall provide evidence that the design engineer has a minimum of five years of documentable experience in the design for reinforced soil structures. The design engineer shall provide proof of current professional liability insurance with an aggregate coverage limit of not less than $2,000,000. D. Owner shall/may provide soil testing and quality assurance inspection during earthwork and wall construction operations. Contractor shall provide any quality control testing or inspection not provided by the Owner. Owner's quality assurance program does not relieve the contractor of responsibility for quality control and wall performance. 1.06 Delivery, Storage and Handling A. Contractor shall check all materials upon delivery to assure that the proper type, grade, color, and certification has been received. B. Contractor shall protect all materials from damage due to jobsite conditions and in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. Damaged materials shall not be incorporated into the work. PART 2: PRODUCTS Standard Page 2 8/1/01 • 2.01 Definitions A. Modular Unit - a concrete retaining wall element machine made from portland cement, water, and aggregates. B. Structural Geogrid - a structural element formed by a regular network of integrally connected tensile elements with apertures of sufficient size to allow interlocking with surrounding soil, rock, or earth and function primarily as reinforcement. C. Unit Drainage Fill - drainage aggregate which is placed within and immediately behind the modular concrete units. D. Reinforced Backfil,l - compacted soil which is placed within the reinforced soil volume as outlined on the plans. 2.02 Modular Concrete Retaining Wall Units A. Modular concrete units shall conform to the following architectural requirements: face color - concrete gray - standard manufacturers' color may be specified b the 9 Y Y P Y Owner. face finish - sculptured rock face in angular tri-planer configuration. Other face finishes will not be allowed without written approval of Owner. bond configuration - running with bonds nominally located at midpoint vertically adjacent units, in both straight and curved alignments. exposed surfaces of units shall be free of chips, cracks or other imperfections when viewed from a distance of 10 feet under diffused lighting. B. Modular concrete materials shall conform to the requirements of ASTM C1372 - Standard Specifications for Segmental Retaining Wall Units. C. Modular concrete units shall conform to the following structural and geometric requirements measured in accordance with appropriate references: compressive strength = 3000 psi minimum; absorption = 8 % maximum (6% in northern states) for standard weight aggregates; dimensional tolerances = ± 1/8" from nominal unit dimensions not including rough split face, ±1/16" unit height - top and bottom planes; unit size - 8" (H) x 18" (W) x 18" (D) minimum; unit weight - 100 Ibs/unit minimum for standard weight aggregates; Standard Page 3 8/1/01 inter -unit shear strength - 1500 plf minimum at 2 psi normal pressure; geogrid/unit peak connection strength -1000 plf minimum at 2 psi normal force. D. Modular concrete units shall conform to the following constructability requirements: vertical setback = 1/8"t per course (near vertical) or 1 "+ per course per the design; alignment and grid positioning mechanism -.fiberglass pins, two per unit minimum; maximum horizontal gap between erected units shall be - 1/2 inch. 2.03 Shear Connectors A. Shear connectors shall be 1/2 inch diameter thermoset isopthalic polyester resin-pultruded fiberglass reinforcement rods or equivalent to provide connection between vertically and horizontally adjacent units. Strength of shear connectors between vertical adjacent units shall be applicable over a design temperature of 10 degrees F to + 100 degrees F. B. Shear connectors shall be capable of holding the geogrid in the proper design position during grid pre -tensioning and backfilling. . 2.04 Base Leveling Pad Material A. Material shall consist of a compacted crushed stone base or non -reinforced concrete as shown on the construction drawings. 2.05 Unit Drainage Fill A. Unit drainage fill shall consist of clean 1" minus crushed stone or crushed gravel meeting the following gradation tested in accordance with ASTM D-422: Sieve Size Percent Passing 1 inch 100 3/4 inch 75-100 No.4 0-10 No. 50 0-5 B.. One cubic foot, minimum, of drainage fill shall be used for each square foot of wall face. Drainage fill shall be placed within cores of, between, and behind units to meet this requirement. 2.06 Reinforced Backfill A. Reinforced backfill shall be free of debris and meet the following gradation tested in accordance with ASTM D-422: Sieve Size Percent Passing Standard Page 4 8/1/01 2 inch 100-75 3/4 inch 100-75 No. 40 0-60 No. 200 0-35 Plasticity Index (PI) <15 and Liquid Limit <40 per ASTM D-4318. B. The maximum aggregate size shall be limited to 3/4 inch unless field tests have been performed to evaluate potential strength reductions to the geogrid design due to damage during construction. C. Material can be site excavated soils where the above requirements can be met. Unsuitable soils for backfill (high plastic clays or organic soils) shall not be used in the backfill or in the reinforced soil mass. D. Contractor shall submit reinforced.fill sample and laboratory test results to the Architect/Engineer for approval prior to the use of any proposed reinforced fill material. 2.07 Geogrid Soil Reinforcement A. Geosynthetic reinforcement shall consist of geogrids manufactured specifically for soil reinforcement applications and shall be manufactured from high tenacity polyester yarn or high density polyethylene. Polyester geogrid shall be knitted from high tenacity polyester filament yarn with a molecular weight exceeding 25,000 Meg/m and a carboxyl end group values less than 30. Polyester geogrid shall be coated with an impregnated PVC coating that resists peeling, cracking, and stripping. B. Ta, Long Term Allowable Tensile Design Load, of the geogrid material shall be determined as follows: Ta = Tult / (RFcr'RFd'RFid'FS) Ta shall be evaluated based on a 75 year design life. 1. Tult, Short Term Ultimate Tensile Strength Tult is based on the minimum average roll values (MARV) 2. RFcr, Reduction Factor for Long Term Tension Creep RFcr shall be determined from 10,000 hour creep testing performed in accordance with ASTM D5262. Reduction value = 1.60 minimum. 3. RFd, Reduction Factor for Durability RFd shall be determined from polymer specific durability testing covering the range of expected soil environments. RFd = 1.10 minimum. 4. RFid, Reduction Factor for Installation Damage RFid shall be determined from product specific construction damage testing performed in accordance with GRI-GG4. Test results shall be provided for each product to be used with project specific or more severe soil type. RFid = 1.10 minimum. Standard Page 5 8/1/01 Ll 11 5. FS, Overall Design Factor of Safety FS shall be 1.5 unless otherwise noted for the maximum allowable working stress calculation. C. The maximum design tensile load of the geogrid shall not exceed the laboratory tested ultimate strength of the geogrid/facing unit connection as limited by the "Hinge Height" divided by a factor of safety of 1.5. The connection strength testing and computation procedures shall be in accordance with NCMA SRWU-1 Test Method for Determining Connection Strength of SRW. D. Soil Interaction Coefficient, Ci Ci values shall be determined per GRI:GG5 at a maximum 0.75 inch displacement. E. Manufacturing Quality Control The geogrid manufacturer shall have a manufacturing quality control program that includes QC testing by an independent laboratory. The QC testing shall include: Tensile Strength.Testing . Melt Flow Index (HDPE) Molecular Weight (Polyester) 2.08 Drainage Pipe A. If required, the drainage pipe shall be perforated or slotted PVC pipe manufactured in accordance with ASTM D-3034 or corrugated HDPE pipe manufactured in accordance with ASTM D-1248. PART 3 EXECUTION 3.01 Excavation A. Contractor shall excavate to the lines and grades shown on the construction drawings. Owner's representative shall inspect the excavation and approve prior to placement of leveling material or fill soils. Proof roll foundation area as directed to determine if remedial work is required. B. Over -excavation and replacement of unsuitable foundation soils and replacement with approved compacted fill will be compensated as agreed upon with the Owner. 3.02 Base Leveling Pad A. Leveling pad material shall be placed to the lines and grades shown on the construction drawings, to a minimum thickness of 6 inches and extend laterally a minimum of 6" in front and behind the modular wall unit. B. Soil leveling pad materials shall be compacted to a minimum of 95 % Standard Proctor density per ASTM D-698 Standard Page 6 8/1/01 • • C. Leveling pad shall be prepared to insure full contact to the base surface of the concrete units. 3.03 Modular Unit Installation A. First course of units shall be placed on the leveling pad at the appropriate line and grade. Alignment and level shall be checked in all directions and insure that all units are in full contact with the base and properly seated. B. Place the front of units side -by -side. Do not leave gaps between adjacent units. Layout of corners and curves shall be in accordance with manufacturer's recommendations. C. Install shear/connecting devices per manufacturer's recommendations. D. Place and compact drainage fill within and behind wall units. Place and compact backfill soil behind drainage fill. Follow wall erection and drainage fill closely with structure backfill. E. Maximum stacked vertical height of wall units, prior to unit drainage fill and backfill placement and compaction; shall not exceed two courses. 3.04 Structural Geogrid Installation A. Geogrid shall be oriented with the highest strength axis perpendicular to the wall alignment. B. Geogrid reinforcement shall be placed at the strengths, lengths, and elevations shown on the construction design drawings or as directed by the Engineer. C. The geogrid shall be laid horizontally on compacted backfill and attached to the modular wall units. Place the next course of modular concrete units over the geogrid. The geogrid shall be pulled taut, and anchored prior to backfill placement on the geogrid. D. Geogrid reinforcements shall be continuous throughout their embedment lengths and placed side -by -side to provide 100% coverage at each level. Spliced connections between shorter pieces of geogrid or gaps between adjacent pieces of geogrid are not permitted. 3.05 Reinforced Backfill Placement A. Reinforced backfill shall be placed, spread, and compacted in such a manner that minimizes the development of slack in the geogrid and installation damage. B. Reinforced backfill shall be placed and compacted in lifts not to exceed 6 inches where hand compaction is used, or 8 - 10 inches where heavy compaction equipment is used. Lift thickness shall be decreased to achieve the required density as required. Standard Page 7 8/1/01 C. Reinforced backfill shall be compacted to 95% of the maximum density as determined by ASTM D698. The moisture content of the backfill material prior to and during compaction shall be uniformly distributed throughout each layer and shall be dry of optimum, + 0%, - 3%. D. Only lightweight hand -operated equipment shall be allowed within 3 feet from the tail of the modular concrete unit. E. Tracked construction equipment shall not be operated directly upon the geogrid reinforcement. A minimum fill thickness of 6 inches is required prior to operation of tracked vehicles over the geogrid. Tracked vehicle turning should be kept to a minimum to prevent tracks from displacing the fill and damaging the geogrid.. Rubber tired equipment may pass over geogrid reinforcement at slow speeds, less than 10 MPH. Sudden braking and sharp turning shall be avoided. G. At the end of each day's operation, the Contractor shall slope the last lift of reinforced backfill away from the wall units to direct runoff away from wall face. The Contractor shall not allow surface runoff from adjacent areas to enter the wall construction site. 3.06 Cap Installation A. Cap units shall be glued to underlying units with an all-weather adhesive recommended by the manufacturer. 3.07 As -built Construction Tolerances A. Vertical alignment : ± 1.5" over any 10' distance. B. Wall Batter: within 2 degrees of .design batter. C. Horizontal alignment: ± 1.5" over any 10' distance. Corners, bends, curves ± 1. ft to theoretical location D. Maximum horizontal gap between erected units shall be 1/2 inch. 3.08 Field Quality Control A. Quality Assurance - The Owner shall/may engage inspection and testing services, including independent laboratories, to provide quality assurance and testing services during construction. This does, not relieve the Contractor from securing the necessary construction control testing. B. Quality assurance should include foundation soil inspection. Verification of geotechnical design parameters, and verification that the contractor's quality control testing is adequate as a minimum. Quality assurance shall also include observation of construction for general compliance with design drawings and project specifications. Quality assurance is best performed by the site geotechnical engineer. C. Quality Control — The Contractor shall engage inspection and testing services to perform the minimum quality control testing described in the retaining wall design Standard Page 8 811 /01 • plans and specifications. Only qualified and experienced technicians and engineers shall perform testing and inspection services. D. Quality control testing shall include soil and backfill testing to verify soil types and compaction and verification that the retaining wall is being constructed in accordance with the design plans and project specifications. PART 4 MEASUREMENT AND PAYMENT Standard Page 9 8/1/01 > It INS1AllAiION - SifP BY Siff' With proper design methods., Keystone® Retaining: Walls can be builtsto-retain a,variety of site conditions. Before construction begins, review standard design guidelines and engineering requirements. Will,the retaining wall be a "non -critical" structure falling within basic design and construction;methods'or wilHt.be a `critical"`structure requiring strict engineering documentation? The fol- lowing list describes site conditions`which will requirdl1 full engineering study. Consult local building officials for specific require- ments. For questions relating to the functionality of.the Keystone® units in:any of.these conditions,; contact a Keystone® repre- sentative. 0> The wall height, including terraces; exceedss6' (1.8m) for Standard'. Units, or.3' (0 9m) for Mini or Compac Units. v The wall will be built on unstable soils, such' as clays or organic materials. The wall will encounter hydrostatic loading or erosion;from waveYaction;drainageor site runoff. The wall will encounter loading.conditions-resulting from slopes or -structures behind or above the wall. The wall will use geogrid soil reinforcement or other mechanical anchoring devices. The following construction 'procedures, assume that all;design or engineering issues have been,addressed. These installation instructions apply to the Keystone® Standard; Compac,-and Mini Units: Proceed with construction. using tools common to the construction industry. At a minimum; you will need a�level'or transit.and tools or equipment to diga trench and place and compact the backfill. STEP 1: PREPARE SITE Remove all surface vegetation, and debris. This material should not be used3as backfill. Ifirequired; excavate site soils to allow for placement.of the Keystone®' units. If a wall is beingbuilt onfill, this°step may not be necessary. v STEP 2: EXCAVATE BASE TRENCH After selecting the location; and aength.of the wall, excavate the Base Trench. This owers,the first.course below grade creating a passive wedge of soil to resist sliding (n addition, it helps prevent erosion and scouring at -the base of the wall. The Base Trench should be wide enough to allow for the Keystone®Unit and Drainage Zone: -The Drainage;Zone, an area of crushed stone material, promotes the release of hydrostatic pressures (see STEP 6;for specific depth requirements). QUESTION: How wide does the Base Trench need to be? FIGURE 1.01 ANSWER: A minimum 24" (610mm) wide for all units. PASSIVE NOTE: additional excavation width may be required if geogrid SOIL or other mechanical reinforcement will be used. WEDGE The Base Trench must be dug deep enough to allow for placement of the Basee Leveling Pad and any buried Keystone® units. :44 BASE TRENCH QUESTION: What should be the depth of the Base Leveling Pad? ANSWER: A depth of 6" (150mm) is standard. NOTE Keystone® walls less than X-0" (1 m) high, built on firm, inorganic original soils require no Base Leveling Pad. Level and compact soils in the Base Trench. Requirement for additional depth of leveling pad material must be determined by an engineer I QUESTION: How many Keystone@ units should be placed below grade? ANSWER: Wall Height (in feet) x 1.5 = depth of units (in inches) below grade. Wall Height (in meters) x .125 = depth of units (in meters) below grade. (1" (25mm) of wall buried below, grade for each 8" (203mm) of wall above grade). DEPTH OF BASE »; TRENCH WIDTH OF BASE i TRENCH I The mbmamo mim-1 hre hn bew mq*d by Key6lone> fleta'v�bg Wal Syg m. mc. and W the bml of ou NW W111e. eCC 1R RPBSBNa bM Kay1=1 Voa+n ice m the appiK:Vone n>t�N ve 3mo- FNeI Eem.mumfgn of "m NA ab01y v fM ue caeempmw a 13 of ufe Bte "le eob fb.poa1ob of Uq ua SwWraIEnpi a1M analys6 .. che9 be pellofine0 by a quaf"eA alpneer. 0 ,997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS. INC. M"neapda. Mnnegola • (612) 897 1040 • 16121697Z%la Ir INSiALLA110N - STEP BY STEP EXAMPLE: 8'H x 1.5 =12" (2.4mH x 0:125 = 0.305m) of wall unit below grade. NOTE: The number.of buried courses shouldnotexceed threeunless-otherwise specifiefty.engineering. The combined depths of the Base Leveling Pad and buried units is the total depth of the Base Trench. - FIGURE 1.02 QUESTION: What should be the depth of the Base Trench? ANSWER: Depth of wall units below grade + Base Leveling Pad depth of the Base Trench (following above example) 12" + 6" = 18" (0.3m + 0.15m = 0.45m); depth of Base Trench below grade i There are three exceptions to this rule for determining the proper depth of the Base Trench. ' 1. Poor soil conditions may require a much larger depth of Base Leveling Pad material or,soil reinforcement.This extra material would j be used to improve the beanngcapacity.of the sub grade to`fully support, the weight of the retaining wall..A Geotechnical engineer.should evaluate , such concerns. i 2. Construction of a wall onp•.5•• a slope (figure 1.02). When FIGURE1.03 I using the standard Base Trench guidelines, the amount of passive soil in front of a wall constructed on a slope is reduced signif- >-f MIN DEPTH of icantly. This requires an BURIED UNIT increase in the Base Trench to meet minimum re "ire- i KRW UNITS STEP DEPTH OF BASE TRENCH (BT) _5' (1.5m) MIN PASSIVE SOIL WEDGE 2 (2) Run of slope (1) Rise of slope 1 .A- BASE LEVELING PAD (BLP) DEPTH OF UNITS BELOW GRADE ::•:. LEVEL _ '_ UP GRADE . SLOPING GRADE,, meats. ( - I QUESTION: What should be,the depth of the Base;Trench for walls constructed on.slopes?' ANSWER: Minimum distance from -front of first course"to daylight on the slope,+, run of the slope = depth of units below grade + depth of Base Leveling Pad .= depth of Base Trench below grade:. EXAMPLE: 5' (1.5m) , 2'(run of slope) = 2.5' (0.75m)(depth of units below grade) + 6 (0.15m) = 3' (0.9m) depth of Base Trench below grade 3. Stepping units up along 'asloping.grade (figure 1.03). When the,grade running parallel with the wall is not level with the top or bottom of the Keystone® units; the depth of the; Base Trench and"depth:of the units below',grade-will vary. Maintain the minimum depth of buried Keystone®Units: F STEP 3: PLACE AND} COMPACT"BASE LEVELING PAD" Begin first by selecting the proper Base Leveling Pad material. QUESTION: What material should be used for the Base Leveling Pad? The inb.e_ m,dW d hear nos b— compiled by Kays. —Retaining Wal Systmm, Inc. mW 0 8a best of our Imo Wp, a=.I* tepe..b %Keystone prodrtl use n the l epoicatnro atddi me nrobmed. 5ml slNtlion of de sue- . eylty for tM use c.9-plimtl and b matuar of Ica me 0c We reaporolbil¢y of the usm. Sm c l ditso and B *Sts sm, N perbm w Vy 9 VuNdlad ang— O 1997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, INC. M—aMis, a9nnasda • (612) 897-1040 • (612) 897-395&b u MEMO -75 . . . ........ .. 1> INSIALLATION - STIP BY S111' . ANSWER: Granular inorganic soil,(i.e; Class #5, Burma; ,Road .Base).,Its,maximum particle.size,is 3/4" (20mm). Its minimum particle size is no. more than -10% of.the. volume, passing a.No. 200°sieve-.,,Usinglarger material will make leveling more difficult. The following are specific'options: i OPTIONS: 1. 3/8" to 3/4" (10 - 20 mm) crushed stone in areas with high moisture levels. 2. Angular sand, stone sand, etc. in areas with low moisture levels. 3. A 2000± p§il.,(140L+kg/em2),,hon-reinforced concrete, level in g'pad', "17 (25mm).Wrnazimum 3" (75mm) thick. 4. A 3500 psi.(246±kg/em?) reinforced,concrete footing: This option is used only,lin critical applications as recommended by an engineer. NOTE: Do not use pea rock or rounded aggregate for the base leveling pad. The rounded'surface of-these1materials yields low friction in compaction,and allows a greater potential for wall movement. F1'(,IJRF 1 1714 Place selected Base Leveling Pad material -and compact with appropriate equip, ,- ment to achieve proper density. Compact granular materials to 95% Standard Proctor or 90% Modified Proctor (soil testing standards to determine % of.maximum soil density). Crushed stone should be compacted to yield (Proctor testing can not be performed on crushed stone* material.). Requirements for the type of testing pro- gram, locations and frequency is the responsibility of the engineer of record or owner. Compact the Base Leveling Pad to a level condition-, Check for accuracy using a level/transit or hand level. Use some sand or fine granular material for minor adjustments. If a concrete (non-reinforced),IeVeling pad is,being,used, set, batter boards, pour concrete, and screed level. When building on a level grade condition,,the Base Leveling, Pad is placed for the - full length of the wall before, Keystone®units are installed. Walls built on a sloping lateral grade may require a stepped base (figure 1.03). In these con- ditions, the Base Leveling Pad and'.the first course Keystone@ Units are installed for each length of a step in grade (figure 1.07). Beginning at the lowest elevation, place and, compact the, Base Leveling Pad material. N6df install the first course of Keystone@ units. After leveling and alignment of these units is complete, place and compact the Base Leveling Pad'for the:next step in grade. While doing so, place the same material around the units closest to the step in grade to stabilize their position. The top of the last Keystone® unit becomes the grade level for the top of this.Base Leveling Pad. This unit retains the Base Leveling Pad material for this next step in grade. If site conditions necessitate, building in the opposite direction, from a high to low. elevation,, is, pqssi ble, though significantly less efficient. This method will require greater skill to level and align the Base Leveling Pad with the last KeystoneO unit of the preceding course. 11 STEP 4: SET AND ALIGN THE BASE COURSE Begin at lowest wall elevation. Place all units parallel to the align- ment line. The machined edges (figure 1.05) of adjoining units should contact each other.;This procedure applies to straight walls (see section on "CURVES'f1for related: information) : If slag, material, protrudes past,the corner, chip Pack to allow corners to con- tact properly. Be sure all uhits,are set top side up. The topside has four pin holes;centered between the two kidney receiving holes ( figure 1.06). All units should,r6§t firmly on the. Base Leveling Pad.,,Ilf,any, r6cking:`moltiomocdurs, adjust base leveling pad material or units to achieve solid contact with this surface. Check and adjust.the level and alignment of all units., The position of the, Base Course determines the alignment of all succeed- t The intomidon mWared hmin has been oompiled by Keyslom Ratakrarg Wal Systems, Inc. and b tM beg of am knowWp. ts-rately veRessiss ft Keystorss product m m Its, aWlical—which ere Mstrated Foal dmermi�offtust. abihty for the we cosdemplatod wW Its ms� of = are the sole resp—bilry of the — Sm ral osso and analysis shall be W—d by a quali!W wpm, 0 1997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS. W. Mnwarohs Nmesots - (612) 897-1040 - (6121 897.3B584ax BASE LEVELING PAD (; � i '. - %. 'Yp. :..•.. I cif.— f �{y. i[ INSTALLATION STEP BY Siff ing courses. Adjustments to alignment must, be made at this time, Do not:. , r FIGURE - - 1.06 align the units using the split face surface. Instead, verify the proper position ;, ALIGN ALONG of all Keystone® units by examining a, straight, line- across the back of,the;` PIN HOLES, uNIT VOID, OR units or over the to of unit (figure 1.06). P (9BACK OF UNIT Level Keystone® units side to side -using a 48" (:122cm) or longer level: Units . TOP OF UNIT can be leveled front to back using a minimum 24" (61cm) level If a level/ WITH FOUR transit is used, spot check every 4th or 5th unit. The top surface of two PIN HOLES E adjoining units should align (+) or (-) 1 /8" (3mm). Minor height adjustments PARALLEL UNITS ` can be made by tapping the unit with a rubber.mallet or by placing small, .. To ALIGNMENT amounts of coarse sand under"the, units. Applyingexcessive vertical force in:I LINE - an attempt to adjust the height alignment could' produce stress fractures.,., Placement of more than 3/4" (20mm) of loose material could lead to unac- ceptable settlement. ,k All Base Course units can be placed for an entire wall length or for a small segment of the full length. To reduce the movement of base units from con- struction equipment, place core material after placement and leveling of CD each ten units. When placing the Base Course for a wall with a stepping grade, set all units at the lowest grade elevation first.; Secure the position of these units as described in STEP 2. Placement of the Base Course for the next step in grade should begin by placing a minimum of 1-1/2 overlapping units (figure 1.07). This will ensure proper interlock position for additional units. \ UNEVEN SPLIT j FACE SURFACE ALIGNMENT LINE i LEVEL UNITS SIDE TO SIDE LEVEL UNIT FRONT TO BACK OVERLAP I STEPPED BASE '`` COURSE 1-1/2 UNITS ON �^ `��♦ f E SLOPING GRADE Ttq abnee m t.W KpRa NC OBM —pW Nj Key=M* Rmeomi9 Wa1 Symeme. M W W lne beet a ae 9e- —* mo.eeenls OM KIM— Wa uee n dm ePM= w are IGAe EYw OeW+mpeian of ON.M eNWy b We uee cab DMW and b mepnm a= meM sae RSpOnLNWr a me lam s q e^erae"pi end mierysn epee be De"arced w e Vualmea ^am 01997 KEYSTONE AEINNING WALL SYSTEMS. K M—apus. Mnner;ae - (612) $97.1600 - (612) 897.M%W 7* Or n o INSTA11A110N STEP BY 511:P STEP 5: INSERT. FIBERGLASS CONNECTING PINS (figure 1.08) - FIGURE 1.08 Before installing the pins, select a batter option. "Batters is the slope of thee. face of a wall upward and backward so that the wall:,leans intoithe INSERT FIBERGLASS PIN embankment being retained. With Keystone®, batter is mechanically INTO PIN HOLE controlled by the pin position. Units with four pin -holes appearing.in the top of the Keystone® unit have three batter options,. 8'.8° (1-1/4'j30mm]);: FRONT PIN HOLES 4.40 (5/8" [15mm]) or near v' ertical. Units with only two pin holes`appear . ing in the top of the Keystone, unit result in a 4.40 batter (figure QUESTION: Which batter option should be used? I g J ANSWER: A 4.40 or 8.80 batter may be used for any installation. Non- geogrid reinforced walls should use this batter for greatest stability. Straight walls are well suited for this batter j option. A near vertical batter works well :for tall geogrid reinforced walls with tight radius curves and corners. NOTE: See "CORNERS AND CURVES " section for the effect of batter on curved walls. E q Place two Keystone® pins'into two of the preformed holes in the top of I BACK PINHOLES each Keystone® unit. In some cases.a light. slag4ilm may cover part or all, of the hole. In these conditions, use a hammer to>tap,the pin.through the, . concrete slag and into the opening . Once in position, a minimum j FIGURE 1.09 "NEAR VERTICAL" w WALL 8.8•8, BATTER FRONT PINE HOLE PIN HOLE KIDNEY SHAPED RECEIVING HOLE ALTERNATE BETWEEN ^ The inkamabw crewed heren has been w.Pbd by Neyow Retahnp Wal SyMeae. Inc. and e, the bael.ot our krowledge, —ret* reM-0 the Neydoro Produ t me m Me appikeW whe are Iluetrmad. Feel tennketkm 0 1 Me W- We rasp u"IblliYoMe pateer. SMeWd and 4 — of me are the dssipi aW aney. Ad he pert—d by a Qaefdbd enpneer. ! O 1997 KEYSTONE RE7AIMNG WALL SYSTDAS. PC. M eapM AUmatme • (612) 877. tO4O • (612) 897 M%4ax .q _. �. of -a.' !I I;9t .iy ' li INSiALLAiION S1fP BY S1fP 1-1/4" (30mm) segment of the pin should protrude out of r FIGURE 1.10 the opening above the top surface of the unit. t r STEP 6: PLACE UNIT/DRAINAGE MATERIAL. UNIT/DRAINAGE (figure 1.10) MATERIAL Fill the Keystone® unit voids and Drainage Zone with an DRAINAGE ZONE inorganic free draining granular material (preferably 3/4" (20mm) crushed stone). The unit voids are the openings r and spaces between units.' The Drainage Zone is the a °11 UNITVOIDS combined area of the unit voids and/or additional area behind the unit. The width of Unit/Drainage material 4� should be approximately 24"(61cm), measured from; the{ - wall face to the back of the trench (for specific volumes required to fill a Compac or Standard Unit, refer to the Standard or Compac Unit Keynote ). Certain site condi- tions may require a greater width of this material. Place material into the specified area. A crushed stone material ® a will consolidate naturally. Graded granular or coarse ° t r "' sand material may require hand compaction. Do not operate any automated compaction equipment directly ' over the Keystone® units in an attempt to compact this material. This may result in stress fractures. Proper placement of the Unit/Drainage material serves three important purposes. First, placing this material between units on adjoining courses creates a positive - - interlock between units. If geogrid reinforcement is used, friction interlock with the wall face is.significantly improved: In addition ;this,material .will increase the overall weight of each Keystone® unit; a very important feature for simple! gravity retaining walls. 'Finally; it will permit'the'release of hydrostatic pres- sures which build up behind thewall:face: The UniUDrainage.material used in this procedure; should be the same as is described in Step 3 (Points 1 & 2). If fine, -'grain material is used'(i.e:, sand); water percolation mays move some of these particles out of joints between units and over the wail' The presence of soil'on'the°unit faces may cause some discoloration and an unacceptable appearance. To eliminate t6is`problem,.'01ace a piece.of filter fabric.between each unit.'This will, allow moisture to flow out of the face while trapping soil fines. A.larger aggregate? material,, such- as, crushed stone will filter most soil fines found in retained site soils. This back -filling procedure should occur after placement of each Keystone® course. When building with the Standard Unit, an alternate technique may.:be used::The-size ofahis unit.and its voids will allow them to be laid up to three courses high prior to placement of the Unit/Drainage material. To,use.this construction procedure, the material must be clean 3/4" (20mm) crushed stone. Natural consolidation of this material will occurduring construction. if geogrid reinforcement; is used; backfill units before placing geogrid layers. Attempting to backfill ,through the geogrid'openings,will not allow the placement of the Unit/Drainage material into the unit voids.,... - - STEP 7: BACKFILL AND COMPACT. SOILS; The depth of this area will "vary depending:on the site -conditions and: -construction. procedures used. Walls constructed in a fill condition will require the placement ofllarge volumes of this material: Walls,built into cut conditions will require varying quantities of material depending on the'amount of:over excavation: The same placement rules;appl . for each,condition:,,In general, all soils'should be placed in no more than 8" (20cm) thick lifts, the height of a single Keystone Wnit. More:%specifically, the' proper,thickness'of material placed -in a single lift is dependent on the type of soils and compaction `equipment being used. For'example; crushed stone (used fo'r.'ohit/Drainage) may be placed in maximum lifts and will compact with minimal;effort Most inorganic site soils; easily influenced by moisture levels, must be placed in shorter lifts and will require greater compaction effort.. 1 TM mblmeam cWwmd nereh Aes Oeen compdad by KOYMW Retemmp Wal Systems. Inc. and W tM beg of W knoWdpe. B Wey represema Ba Ney : Didm u m CM epDfK9tDm M1eCn m0 .Vmd FmM p OBIMnelEilan Vie Gm. _Ky W 1ne uee CdeeM.w 0ed U memm 01 e9e Poe eb e01B 1e5pmedel�' 01 the $bucbnd CaE� eb BIIWk6 . _ tnell de DMGmBO W a WafNeO eepeem 01W KEYSTONE RRAIN NG WALL SYSTEMS. K MmeaDob. Mnnemla • (612) 897 10.0 • (612) 897 38581. q Fes,--ro «- INSTALLATION - STEP BY STEP What about compaction? The backfill soils need to be FIGURE 1.11 compacted to a minimum 95% Standard Proctor (95% of the soil's maximum density). Both the type of material BACKFILL SOIL and the compaction equipment need to be considered RETAINED BACKFILL when addressing this issue. Soils compacted with walk a. behind equipment will require the placement of thin layers , of material. Using ride -on mechanical equipment willi,allow a� 6 placement of thicker lifts of material. Consult an engineer ® `� for specific recommendations. The following are basic ®a , guidelines: • Backfill material must have the proper moisture content for optimum performance when compacting. • Organic or heavy clay material should not be ® ®a ' used. These materials hold moisture and do not compact properly. • Walk behind mechanical compaction equipment PASSIVE SOIL WEDGE ; may be used to compact any soils placed beyond the Unit/Drainage zone. UNIT/DRAINAGE MATERIAL • Ride -on mechanical compaction equipment should - J be operated no closer than within 3' (1 m) of the KeystoneO Unit back surface. 1 • Do not over compactor compact.soils;'next to the back of the unit m`arruncontrolled manner: This may drive drainage material under the unit; forcing the units out of level: If this continues,Ahe wall may begin to lean forward. i All soil testing should be performed by qualified engineer. Soil tests should betaken 'no closer than three feet from the back surface of the Keystone® unit. While placing backfill material'behind the first course of Keystone®-units,,replace the passive soil:wedge at the front of the units. This will secure the proper. alignment of all units (see figure 1.11). i STEP 8 : SWEEP TOP OF UNITS CLEAN Remove all excess unit/drainage material from the top , surface of all units. This allows a smooth surface for r FIGURE 1.12 placement of the next course: of, Keystone® units.-Ifsmall ' stones become sandwiched between units;:polnt loading B FT TAILITS may occur resulting in stress fractures. This material," PINS OF' SECTION may also leave units out of level, creating, visual distor TWO UNITS BELOW tion. If due to the manufacturing process, ridges or slag ­;',ALIGN WITH °0. material are present, remove byusing a tool or use the,',KIDNEY next course unit being placed to, rub the high spot off: SHAPED Q` Q HOLES r STEP 9: INSTALL ADDITIONAL COURSES OF KEYSTONE UNITS (figures 1.12 - 1.15)� r. y Place additional courses of Keystone® units. Each unit ; will be placed over two units below creating a running bond face pattern. Easiest placement of the Keystone®_ units is accomplished in the following steps:CENTER OVER POINT WHERE TWO UNITS JOIN The tretrmatlan cmntamed herein hes bw conWled by Keystow Reteirinp Wal Systerm, Nc. and to the hest of our hreMedpe, accurately regMserea Rm Keystoire product use in the aDPlimtiom xhtch- •ustrahtd. Flnel d.t hmtion ol9re eud- ahlity for the use cerdemptated and h manner ol use are the sole reseemb6N of dm user. Structural design and enelysn ehes be cermr ed oy a daeld•d a Go- 0 1997 KEYSTONE RETAMNG WALL SYSTEMS, INC. Mmneepots Mrmesota • (612) $97.1640 • (612) 9973&%W FIGURE 1.13 ON THE )GE OFTWO -OW 5 • INSIALLA110N - SI[P BY SUP FIGURE 1.14 TIP UNIT DOWN OVER PINS IM n AA,, _1 n e Lift each Keystone® 'unit by its back tail section tomove,it FIGURE 1.15 into position. e Center the unit in front of the point where the two units:, - below meet. SLIDE UNIT FORWARD BE SURE UNITS SO THAT PINS ARE PARALLEL e Set the face of the unit onto the front edge of the" two CONTACT THE BACK units below. i SIDE OF KIDNEY SHAPED HOLE - With the Keystone® 'unit in this position, slowly lower it to contact the two units below. While lowering the unit, the .08 two kidney receiving *holes should slip over one fiberglass V pin in the units below (open kidney will allow a visual , check). 0 , Pull the unit forward to engage pins. The unit will be locked into a batter position., Visually check to see that the unit is parallel tothe :units below: After setting,a, length of Keystone® units, Visually check the,overall alignment. Make minor adjustments as necessary. STEP 10: CONTINUE WITH STEPS 5-9,UNTI.1LALL KEYSTONE UNITS ARE INSTALLIED,,,,, STEP 11: POSITION AND SECURE CAP UNITS Follow the same procedures,described,:in,STEP 9 for proper,placement-and`positioning of the KeystoneO cap units. A variety of sizes and shapes, including .4" (1 00mm) ancl1' (200mm) high units, have been designed to satisfy most installation needs. Availability of these units will ,vary, from region to region!; For,cap� unit descriptions,,and= placement Variations, see the section on, "WALL CAP: USING KEYSTONE UNITS" in this manual. Cap units may be secured;*th.a bonding, material ,to,prevent theirremoval. Final alignmentat the top of the wall may also require this same procedure. If due to final alignment repositioned cap units;do not,properly,meet Pin connections, then remove the pins and secure these.cap,units with.the bonding material: Due to the flexibility or noh-rigid.qualities of the Keystone® sys- tem, the bonding material rnmt be,able tololerate somemovement;.-KeyStoneq, KapSealT"^adhesive with a special formulation to withstand temperature and'moisture extremes. -,If this material is: is designed for this use unavailable, other flexible epoxy based adhesives des igned`lo :bon&mason ry.,to,,masonry maybe used.-, Referto,'manufacturers instructions for complete details. The intmam cDrdW%d hmin ho been compiled by KeYMW Retaining Wal Syshms, Inc. arod W he best of om t kn­n*. aoe=aly mpr� he KeyAw MWct am in he pplicMc. which ma 1mW" Rnalmanner"Mt mIf ft .11- abilly for the m —ternplated and b of = m the sole responsibility of the — St.1-1 Ono ON ma"b shag be W—.d by a Qu.5W .9—. 01997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, INC. M.wwws. Mime - (612) 897 1040 - (512) 8973858-fax f t 't `�k- , s �. ' �' INSTALLATION - SifP BY Siff STEP 12: FINISHED GRADE AND LANDSCAPING j FIGURE 1.16 (figure 1.16) The Keystone® Retaining Wall is complete. Final grading, - 't CAP UNITS". planting or other surface materials can now be put into place. Remember that finished grade conditions affect FINISHED"° the wall's performance. Such conditions should not be altered from the original design. Loading with slopes, parking lots and buildings should be maintained as / $&; '� LANDSCAPE GRADE,' ' c)' designed. Any changes to;the top of finished wall grade A. must be evaluated prior to'construction. SPECIALIZED CONSTRUCTION TECHNIQUES The following are a list of specific construction techniques that may be related to the construction of a Keystone wall. See other sections in'this manual for further details. • Geogrid reinforcement • Drainage issues • Pipes and culverts through the wall face �; �;• • Guard rails °° c;•:" '' e . p,¢ • Barriers • Fences and poles • Structu`res • Curbs and copings �x • Water Applications • Terraces • Light Fixtures and signage a Mixing unit sizes. The Inlormaaon mma'vied h— h. been ..pled by Keyebne' Retaudn9 Wal Systenn, Inc and b the beet of our • Mmw+eop eauretaly reR—m the Keytlpre proaq we in th n90o —witch-llusbatetl. PoiN determinational6a d- ably br"use = mPWW and b mennx of use = tib pc, w reW.SOM of then . Sbwlld d.V and eneo. •{ J'1� aM0 oe oedmned by e 4uaf W mWm. O 1997 KEYSTONE RETAINING WALL SYSTEMS, W. MemeOft Mrc • (612) 897-1000 • (612) 897.38%taa DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 Phone:425-334-9980 Fax: 425-334-7380 DRAINAGE REPORT FOR TOM & LIN HILLMAN DATE: OCTOBER 30, 2002 RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER SITE: 74' PLACE W. & MEADOWDALE RD. LOT 33 EDMONDS, WA DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC - SEWER & WATER FEASIBILITY - SITE DEVELOPMENT -1. STREET�FIL� Y :� > •.v 74TH PLACE, W. & MEADOWDALE RD LOT 33 OVERVIEW: A single family home is proposed for construction on Lot 33 near the intersection of 741h Place W. & Meadowdale Rd. This Lot 33 house will share an access driveway with a home to be constructed on the adjacent lot the to south, Lot 34, (owned by Michel Construction). The area of Lot 33 where the house will be placed is relatively level with a downward slope to the west of approximately 3%. Near the western boundary of the site and in the vicinity of the shared driveway the site slopes downward to the west at approximately 30%. DISCUSSION: Attached are calculations for two detention pipes with separate release structures that are to be installed on Lot 33. One pipe of 3-foot diameter and 60 feet long is to be installed in the upper driveway. The other pipe 2 feet in diameter and 16 feet long is to be installed at the lower yard area, (west edge of the lot). The control structure for the 60-foot long detention pipe will be shared with the detention pipe to be installed in the driveway of the Lot 34, adjacent to the north. Sub -Basin "A" is shown on the attached Sub -Basin Map. The 60-foot long, 3-foot diameter detention pipe captures a portion of the flows from this Sub -Basin "A". The SCS method was used to calculate the size of the 60-foot long pipe. In accordance with the Washington State Department of Ecology Manual, the pipe is designed to detain flows from the 2-, 10- and 100-yr 24-hr storm events. Per the Washington State DOE Manual, flows released from the detention structure are to match one-half of the calculated flow from the pre -developed 2-yr storm, and to match the pre -developed flows of both the 10- and 100-yr storms. However, due to the relatively small sub -basin area, and the use of the conservative value of CN=70 for the pre -developed condition of Sub -Basin "A", the calculated pre -developed 2-year flow is zero. Some flow must be released for the 2-year storm, or the pipe will never completely drain. Therefore, the controlled released for the 2-year storm is set at 0.01 cfs. The other detention pipe will capture flows conveyed from the western portion of the rooftop. The impervious area of this western portion rooftop is 1,500 SF. Since, this is less than 5,000 SF threshold, the city of Edmonds Standard Drainage Detention Worksheet was used to size the detention pipe and release orifice size. rj--vWmnp- v 008P. -W-.W•q SEE f- —\ MAP Ot Al mill CZ Q3 PL MCA AV v AV A 72"WA M 12 AV W 71S RysF -n L W to rn 6 CD FI-1 V v !t--7',V AV PIN ULD. 21 AY-Y' lab IQ M L64 r" AV 0 I ie qp U12NOW \IAAI �Z I AV CE ic OR f FN5; L 4PZ --- & AV 4P Isi-9 4. AV kv 60TH A AV 14200 '1 bS 5! 697 PL � 60TH (A; 11- 58T� PLY Sol% C)t. PL W 56TH gis AV W ;R 5511 le U sk rr F 5 :Wj PL W 12 Is Is EL x i AV li 541H - - *pf - v- 6 AV 41. a: . 92wn PL 125 v 0 4 3RD AV W Av I 14 -Awl W 50 520D tq A' W pis, Jut �C Pt v PLY r 4p SOTH � AVI 4 TH WIN A t3 - Fi, r.- 49TN PL v AV ;2 L2 p -T ---- ---- MPH. PLY 45TIl I Oro 31- OR VIA a A M&A A I t J W � wlkt -dyw Nis�&•enr NVWIIIH 040 10 • n �xso`o i=v3avaw 11 i• / / 01 / . • n %4 U t • • • • m BSM T =106 RDA RY pF sus. e4vm Sub- 8" "A" IMP�RV/OUS 07. sh, U30 ftotz STAN �D DRAINAGE DETEN%DN SYSTEM WORKSHEET ov,wm Torn & G;n Hillman ADDPMS 11410 k E ) 241 PrJ5 sy,s K i rkl and, WA `10O34 •••••DESIGN DATA••'•• IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA IS-00 s f iuum PIPE L•G 21 acrt:arton �iK LENGTH odctnp �n �" (�crrrtuL� ,L' .,MfNtMUM } UPPER CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION ut E'XCXr,',DE[P, 4-61 SPALLS OR [DUAL FROM CONTROL C! rx P'X 20 MP $/N CRUSHCO ROCX r Npup amir �tZ�n OutLtr t:0►.twpL NfN, ,DRtrtu CONTROL CATCH BASIN ORIFICE • C. L& YtAtil r mI a= RUNOFF SPREADER. TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SFIAU NOT BE CONNED M DETEM70N S=M 11 NOTm. L Cat! Badiaftft Dlviaafz (9 l-=O) for a ggbdjne and detmtioa system iagmdan befm bsc� m'd liar &d kqwAm. APPROVED By Z. Ragx= Mty for apetst m sod msiaeman" of dn&W symmt an pdv m pwparty is tba "q=wiWU* of for peopoaty a*=. b(Aiwial icasmteLtrd is dwat wAp pipo a� be !lnsbod -must ont sad fnavovfid 5aai thfa catch baabaa toatlaw proper opadtion, 7 a+dat control a DATE _bs knot ones K ! on moo . UPPER CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION ut E'XCXr,',DE[P, 4-61 SPALLS OR [DUAL FROM CONTROL C! rx P'X 20 MP $/N CRUSHCO ROCX r Npup amir �tZ�n OutLtr t:0►.twpL NfN, ,DRtrtu CONTROL CATCH BASIN ORIFICE • C. L& YtAtil r mI a= RUNOFF SPREADER. TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SFIAU NOT BE CONNED M DETEM70N S=M 11 NOTm. L Cat! Badiaftft Dlviaafz (9 l-=O) for a ggbdjne and detmtioa system iagmdan befm bsc� m'd liar &d kqwAm. APPROVED By Z. Ragx= Mty for apetst m sod msiaeman" of dn&W symmt an pdv m pwparty is tba "q=wiWU* of for peopoaty a*=. b(Aiwial icasmteLtrd is dwat wAp pipo a� be !lnsbod -must ont sad fnavovfid 5aai thfa catch baabaa toatlaw proper opadtion, 7 a+dat control a DATE _bs knot ones K ! on moo . Table 1 - Detention Pipe Sizes Impermeable Required Area Sq. Ft Vol Cu Ft 11 A p - 3012000 50 � SF Z�° 2500 3000 82 75 3500 87 4000. 100 4800 112 5000 125 Note: Allowable Pipe Materials: Impermeable Area So. Ft 2000 2500 3000 3600 4000 4500 5000 Detention _plps diameter < 18' -� 18' to 244 244 to 3e' .30' to 424 Pipe Diameter 16' ' 18' 240 34• 40 28 1$ 10 50 35 20 13 60 42 24 16 Required pipe 70 49 28 18 length in feet 80 56 32 21 90 B3 36 23 100 70 40 25 Reinforced Concrete Aluminized Steel Aluminum CMP Asphalt Coated N-12 ADS (Not permitted on roads) Outlet Ortfice Diameter (inches 6/8 ' 6/8 3/4 3/4• 7/8 7/8 7/8 Max. size knockout 20' 260 3e 420 Catch Basin Type Type i, C815 Type IL 061.B 4-- Type lt, C6IS' . 19 (48' Basin) Type il, CS 10, .19 (54' Basin) 'Source: Assoc. Sand & Gravel Co. Standards • SUB -BASIN "A" CALCULATIONS .WwnkN'Mf� bRAtNME CA Iv-zz-ok SCAB -,BAIT A -.AREA .302 96G SF= .7_D8 A-c SO I L T YP E- C; A LO ER WOOD - E U E R ETl" 4 M V ELLY SA nI 0 Y LQA MS RA IN FA LL INTENSITI ES; pia 1.3 p - 2 Ott. ,v p 3.001, E x iS T ING COND ITION - sE(coND 6ROWTH FaREST PER EDM6MIDS CO M M ONE T1' PEV ELOPM EuT CODE C N = 70 Area 708 A- C OEu E LOPEP CON aIRW I M PER M US R ooFTO P 4 FUMr= 7 300SF pERV (Ous:(Und yhouseSurbed woody aral C'l�l =?8 beh#a 0 7()8 „ t 8-,,54ffCN 70 C i . ' I& sv6- oPSN A 10/22/02 page 2 HILLMAN/MICHEL SUB -BASIN A ' PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: B100D NAME: 100 YR 24 HR DEVELOPED SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 0.54 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 70.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.17 Acres CN..... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.14 cfs VOL: 0.07 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B10D SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA........ RAINFALL TYPE....: PRECIPITATION....: TIME INTERVAL....: TIME OF CONC.....: ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 10 YR 24 HR DEVELOPED 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA 2.00 inches. AREA..: 0.54 Acres 10.00 min CN....: 70..00 10.00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.20 AREA..: 0.17 Acres CN..... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.07 cfs VOL: 0.04 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min BASIN ID: B2D SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA........ RAINFALL TYPE....: PRECIPITATION....: TIME INTERVAL....: TIME OF CONC.....: ABSTRACTION COEFF: NAME: 2 YR 24 HR DEVELOPED 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA 1.30 inches AREA..: 0.54 Acres 10.00 min CN..... 70.00 10.00 min IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.20 AREA..: 0 17 Acres CN..... 98.00 PEAK RATE: 0.04 cfs VOL: 0.02 Ac-ft TIME: 480 min 1* 508- 10/22/02 page 1 SUB -BASIN A HILLMAN/MICHEL PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 -------------__________ BASIN SUMMARY BASIN ID: A100X NAME: 100 YR 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 3.00 inches AREA..: 0.71 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 70.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.00 Acres TcReach - Sheet CN....: 98.00 L: 120.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr: 1.30 s:0.4800 PEAK RATE: 0.06 cfs VOL: 0.04 Ac-ft TIME: 490 min BASIN ID: AlOX NAME: 10 YR 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS:. 0.00 cfs RAINFALL TYPE....: TYPElA PERVIOUS AREA PRECIPITATION....: 2.00 inches AREA..: 0.71 Acres TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN....: 70.00 TIME OF CONC.....: 10.93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA ABSTRACTION COEFF: 0.20 AREA..: 0.00 Acres TcReach - Sheet L: .00 120.00 ns:0.4000 p2yr:•1.309s:0.4800 PEAK RATE: 0.01 cfs VOL: 0.01 Ac-ft TIME: 1120 min BASIN ID: A2X NAME: 2 YR 24 HR EXISTING SBUH METHODOLOGY TOTAL AREA.......: RAINFALL TYPE....: 0.71 Acres BASEFLOWS: .0.00 cfs PRECIPITATION....: TYPElA 1.30 inches PERVIOUS AREA AREA..: TIME INTERVAL....: 10.00 min CN.....: 0.71 70.00 Acres TIME OF CONC.....: ABSTRACTION COEFF: 10.93 min IMPERVIOUS AREA 0.20 AREA..: 0.00 Acres TcReach - Sheet L: PEAK RATE: 120.00 ns:0.4000 C2..... 98.00yr s13208min 0.00 cfs VOL: 0.00 Ac-ftTIME30 �l�l 10/22/02 5U8- 8145 page 1 HILLMAN/MICHEL SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS.33 & 34 ------------------------ STORAGE STRUCTURE LIST UNDERGROUND PIPE ID No. P1 Description: DETENTION PIPE Diameter: 3.00 ft. Length: 120.00 ft. Slope...: 0.0050 ft/ft CALCULATE DECRE4SE IN PIPE- LEM67H FvR sToRA-6E IN 3 85 3x 2 - x x 3 ' = 3S, 75- 3 'Z 1 Z 1<-26 , Equrvale,r LengA a-r 3'P' ?r (/.Y) Z n L= .35. 75 Use I ZO -5 = 1(S LF toki L(ace SS LF on Lf­ 3,f F(ace_ roo ZF 6n C� 33 - • � Sv8 ems' � �� 10/22/02 page 1 HILLMAN/MICHEL SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 ------------- DISCHARGE STRUCTURE.LIST COMBINATION DISCHARGE ID No. C1 Description: COMBINATION DISCHARGE Structure: 01 Structure: Structure: N1 Structure: Structure: NOTCH WEIR ID No. N1 Description: NOTCH WEIR Weir Length: 0.1500 ft. Weir height (p): 0.5000 ft. Elevation : 110.30 ft. Weir Increm: 0.10 MULTIPLE ORIFICE ID No. 01 Description: ORIFICE Outlet Elev: 108.00 Elev: 107.50 ft Orifice Diameter: 0.5000 in. Su6-BASIN A 10/22/02 page 3 HILLMAN/MICHEL SUB -BASIN A PORTION OF LOTS 33 & 34 LEVEL POOL TABLE SUMMARY MATCH INFLOW -STO- -DIS- -PEAK- STORAGE M A-T6H <-------- DESCRIPTION --------- > (cfs) (cfs) --id- --id- <-STAGE> id VOL (cf) pEAk aaaaaa� acaaaaaa=aaaar_aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaeaaaaxaaaaaaa=aaanaaaaaaoa O 2 YR 24 HR ................... 0.00 0.04 P1 Cl 109.03 11 329.63 0101 10 YR 24 HR .................. 0.014 0.07 P1 Cl 110.36 12 759.71 01011 100 YR 24 HR ................. 0.06 0.14 P1 Cl 110.60 13 808.91 0,0(o Table 2.2 Hydrologic Soil Series for Selected Soils in Washington State Soil Type Agnew Hydrologic Soil Group Soil Type Hydrologic Soil Group Ahl C B Hoko- Hoodsporr C C Airs IMkIderwood C C -04— Hoogdal Hoypus C Arents, Alderwood B Huel A Arents, Everett B Indianola A Ashoe B Jonas A B Baldhill B Jumpe B Barneston C Kalaloch C Baumgard Beausite B Kapowsin C/D Belfast B C Katula Kilchis C Bellingham D Kitsap C Bellingham variant C Klaus C Boistfort B Klone C Bow Briscot D Lates B C Buckley D C Lebam Lummi B B Lynnwood D CagBunkey g y C Lystair Carlsborg A Mal B Casey D Manley C Cassolary C Mashel B Cathcart B Mayro%vn B Centralia B McKenna C ChehaliChesalis B McMurray Melbourne D Cinebar B Menzel B Clallam Clayton C .Mixed Alluvial B variable Coastal beaches B variable Molson Mukilteo B Colter C Naff C/D Custer D Nargar B Custer, Drained C National A DabDelphi C Neilton p Dick D Newberg A B Dimal Nisqually B Dupont D D Nooksack C Earimont C Norma Ogarty C/D Edgewick C Olete C Eld Elwell B Olomount C C Esquatzel B Olympic B Everem AOridia Orcas D Everson D O Galvin so Ovall D Getchell A C Giles Godfrey B Pastik C C Greenwater D Pheeney C Grove A C Phelan D Hrs` e C Pilchuck artnHoh C Potchub . C B Poulsbo C Prather C August 2001 Volume 111 - Hydrologic Analysis and Flow Contra! BMPs 2-J9 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. March 29, 2001 Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 212th St. S.W., #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Geotechnical/Civil Engineer Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed Three New Single Family Residences 74th PI. W. — North of Meadowdale Rd. This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation for three building lots on 7e .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 (1.25) feet wide (along 74thh 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. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 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 D 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" Organics, roots, and organic silt. Moist and loose 6" to approx. 40" Increasingly dense silty sand. Fine g rain, slightly moist. Medium dense to dense. 40" to approx. 8' (bottom of pit) Increasingly dense to very dense gray silt Michel Construction, 40 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 66 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 74th PI. 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, 140 March 29, 2001 Page 4 ft- 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 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-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on 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 backfill 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: Desiqn 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 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, March 29, 2001 Page 5 go PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS: M 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 Active Earth Pressure* Passive Earth Pressure Coefficient of Friction Soil Unit Weight Where: Design Value 40 p.c.f. 350 p.c.f. 0.55 125 p.c.f. (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 with hand -operated equipment. Michel Construction, InS9 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 (H:V). 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. . I 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, 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 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 in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Minimum Relative Compaction 95% Behind retaining walls 90% Michel Construction, 110, 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 "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, 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 74t' 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, Ab _ March 29, 2001 Page 10 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. EXPIRES 12123/ROO DMB:abj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer i . MEAUUWUALE RP 10 Street _SW a arPv.iwa.wimn rvn rwrwuaua x✓a�� tarn aw� 11tTn Mrtt!Fw4a1 PfC[u'/.aRf000LA! Np " 1�11�Wa?pvn AP.a)P (Mm®W1w to LORIAN WOOD5 51 E.DdO,_ 3 CL T :EP �` 4b�P.r�''`�1' D ccr, Th C ;,?. an a "!� o `r. �, t:' �•... ; c,— %t,F the r�ui3 r the - ` ell i^�;er?E7ccrrt cr en:. 'r rc-. r,4a, -- shc:':,,. Su� iCa`�, Dt.r not I tit?r� Lit: the " yrStU 0 rn j Or lor, 'Jum Ct `v`.. �:t t OffrL'co$Cr:C.Ji', Ne"Llief tt6 ' v1f L ; artd may crbe representation provided bdSrdther[�poii StR�n E�i, iOAG; nor ItS Ca;,' ! ', • ,,.' %• e��vi,n on Yids m c, cr �d rnap, nor for any orrl , CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT r d ADDRESS HOMEOWNER 15915 - 74th Place West Michel Hillman CONTRACTOR SCALE PMA Developement Servies NTS DATE DRAWN WATERLINE �BY K, Haney NO. 2003-0642 1h11MW& 7y4A A/ Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer March 29, 2001 RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 Michel Construction, Inc. PERMIT COUNTER 7907 212th St. S.W., #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed Three New Single Family Residences 741h PI. W. — North of Meadowdale Rd. This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation for three building lots on 74m PI. W., north of Meadowdale Rd. in Edmonds, Washington. Thin 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 74� 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. I SOILS FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE . DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 v� 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 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, 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. 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 74t' 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 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-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on 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 backfill 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 Desiqn Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Where: (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 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. 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 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 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 (H:V). 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 Construction, Inc. 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, 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 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 in loose thickness. The following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative Compaction Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95% Behind retaining walls 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 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 "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, 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 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 durinQ 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, Inc. March 29, 2001 Page 10 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. exvMs i2r" DMB:abj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer M GOILDING Sam Tay JAN 1 22000 P.O. Box 1330 Mukilteo, WA 98275 ATTN: Jim Walker City of Edmonds 121 Sth Ave N Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Jim, N 1 . 2 Vn0 ENGMEERING January 11, 2000 I talked with Gordy Hyde a few minutes ago and he suggested that I write a letter asking for some kind of determination of questions that I have. I am a prospective purchaser of a lot in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds. I have entered into a Purchase and Sale Agreement with the owner and have a very short time to do a feasibility study. Lot #33 is located on the east side of 74th Place West just north of North Meadowdale Road. It is in the S.W. 1/4, Sec. 5, T.27N., RAE.WM. Lots 5 and 6 (15825 75th Place W) are on the West side of 74th Place W. 74th Place W is a dirt access in front of lot #33 rather than a road. The county plat map that I have shows 74th going from N. Meadowdale through to 158th St. SW. Actually, there is a substantial terrain rise at the north end of 74th Place before it gets to 158th (on the west side of lot 31) and it probably is unrealistic to believe. there will ever be a continuation of 74th Place all to the way to 158th. There are two or three homes with 75th Place addresses that access their property from 74th Place. Eventually, there will be three additional homes built on 74th Place W past the 75th Place home accesses. Gordy indicated I would be required to provide the city with an asphalt access road, perhaps even with curbs/ thickened edge and sidewalk. The road access could be as. little as 12 feet wide or as great as 24 feet depending on. the requirements. Also, there is some question of the requirement of a turn -a -round. I have engaged the services of Ron Parker, Principal Geologist, and his company Associated Earth Sciences of Kirkland for help in understanding the geological issues. I am currently attempting to find an architect that is familiar with the type of problems associated with slide areas. I would appreciate response to the following questions: 1) Will a turn -a -round be required? .. a) If a tum-a-round is required, will the city require it to be on lot 33 rather than lot 32 which would be the end of the road. b) What the dimensions and configuration of a turn -a -round be? 2) Will.the road width requirement be 12 feet, 16 feet or 24 feet? 3) I have not gotten a survey yet, but there appears to be a three to four foot encroachment into the 74th Place W road access by the. folks at 15825 75th Place W. They have a fence and several large ceder trees that appear to be in the road access.. What will the City's position be about the encroachment? Will the city want to move the road to the East to allow the continued encroachment? 4) If the trees are left standing, will the city be responsible for any damage done by the tree roots to a newly installed road? 5) Is there a clear zone required next to the road for trees? Particularly of the size of these trees? 6) I have purchased the $15 packet spelling out Edmonds' slide zone requirements for the Meadowdale area. Lots 32 and 33 are benches created by a previous slide at some time in the past. Will there be other requirements, not spelled out in the packet, relating to the specific area of my lot? 7) Are there any other issues or requirements I will face, other than the normal issues of development faced by any prospective home builder in Edmonds? I am sorry this letter has gotten so long. , It seems as soon as I ask one question, another one pops up. Thank you very much for your time. It is important that.I receive an answer as soon as possible. Cordially yours, Sam Tay ST/ps CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON u�`, .MM` '; • MAYOR .. 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Ih c 18�� January 13, 2000 Sam Tay P.O Box 1330 Mukilteo, WA 98275 SUBJECT: Lot 33. Plat of Meadowdale Dear Mr. Tay, The most effective way to get answers to your questions regarding development is to arrange a pre -application meeting. A pre -application meeting information sheet is enclosed. Since more than one City department is involved in determining requirements for your proposed development, meeting with representatives from each involved department will help you identify and resolve development issues in the shortest amount of time. If you have any questions, please call me at (425) 771-0220. Sincerely, JAMES C. WALKER, P.E. City Engineer JCW/cmc Enclosure c: Ray Miller Jeannine Graf ✓ Gordy Hyde • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Citv - Hekinan. ,laoan Pre -Application Meeting -0c.1190 INFORMATION SHEET You are encouraged to schedule a 45-minute Pre -Application Meeting with the Development Services Department prior to making a formal submittal. Staff from Fire & Development Services will be attending this meeting to provide their comments and answer your questions. The information provided to you at this meeting will identify any major issues involving your project. Future submittals made on a site which has first been reviewed at a pre -application meeting may have issues arise which have not been raised or addressed during the pre - application process. A pre -application is NOT a formal submittal. Submit five (5) folded copies of your preliminary plans to Development Services no later than 4pm on the Wednesday before the meeting. To set up a meeting, or if you have any questions, please call 425-771-0220. MINIMUM INFORMATION REQUIRED ON PLANS 1. Assessor's Parcel Number 2. Location Map 3. North Arrow 4. Drawings to Scale 5. Streets, Dimensioned Setbacks (Building footprint) 6. Parking Requirements 7. :Intended Occupancy Use, Type of Construction, Number of Units, Number of Stories 8. Total Building Square Footage 9. Address 10. Existing.and Proposed Zoning 11. Property Lines ADDITIONAL INFORMATION FOR PLANS IF APPLICABLE (The more information provided, the better we will be able to assist you) 1. Easements 2. Existing and Proposed Structures 3. Existing Topographical Lines and. Proposed Slopes 4. Lot Drainage Patterns 5. Landscaped Areas 6. Proposed Elevations (All Four Sides) 7. Number of Stories 8. Location of Sewage Disposal or Proposed Method 9. Barrier Free Parking 10. Pedestrian Site Access cxeception.Preapmtg1doc Revised 125099 AETR RECORDING RETURN TO: ` Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County 4tfn-: Real Estate Services - 04 P.O'13ox 1107 •.Ei%@reft,:WA 08206 -. •-� �,:•,:::;; ••'.,• INllu�llllllll�lNINIIIIIIIIINIIII� 118111111 I��II 200307151167 2 PGS Q7`-1.5-2003 03:58pm $20.00 ''$NOHQMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON No EXCJSE TAX REQUIRED JUL 1 5' 2003 808 DANTINI, Snohomish County Treasurer By BOB DANT(ti+ ORIGINAL 1180 (Rev. 3J92) ,:'' DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT E-yr.SBZ Underground SW 05(27-4)/JAS • - •• (328830/06) R/W 6965 4526 THIS INDENTER made this /f day of Sune 20 03 , between hereinafter referred to RICIU•UTILITY DISTRICT NO. i OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, and Verizon hereinafter referred to as Grantee; and ; W,ITNI�.SETH: WHEREAS, Grantor is th'e owair of 4ertain.lands and premises situated In'the County of Snohomish , State of Washington, described as follgvis:.•.•••••.. •�... All that portion of Tract 33 of MaadgWdNe of Plate, page 42, records of Sn6,romieh C it Plat, according to plat recorded In Volume 5 described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest copier of"said TractI3; THENCE East along the North line oftiafdTract•a•distance of 220.81 feet; THENCE South in a straight line to a pdint on -the South line o f sfild Tract, which Is 230.29 feet West of the Southeast comer of said Tract; ' THENCE West along the South fine of said Tract to the•t"hwesi-comer of said Tract 33; THENCE Northerly along Westerly line of said Tracttl3 to the - he ito►nt of Beginning. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Tax Parcel No. 00 6133 000 033 00 (A portion df, SW 05-27-0.4) AND WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of acquiring c'e'' finder and upon said Property. .I t�/ L /�/J L� r I it NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor, for and in consideration ohl � other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, 't!eri / ��!/ejt. ��—aa. its agents, contractors, successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privile* i after, improve, extend, repair, operate, and maintain underground electric distri �^/ �, �o,, ��(�� nduits, cables, lines, vaults, switches and transformers, communication lines, fit Z) V "0`"�l `f� ��Yl round mounted facilities and pads and any other necessary or convenient appurtE it portion of the Property ("Easement Area" herein) described as follows situated I " of Washington, to -wit: The West 10 feet of the above described property. Together with the right of ingress to and egress from : nt lands of the Grantor, for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, repai patrolling and operating said facilities, and the right at any time to remove said fi Also the right at all times to cut and/or trim all brush, timber, trees or other �row(h''starRaing gr growing upon the property of Grantor which,( in the opinion of Grantee, is necessary for the';gperatrtin and maintenance of Grantee's facilities and/or constitute a menace or danger to said facilities or to persprts or ptop@rty by reason of proximity to said line. Grantor and the heirs, successors, or assigns of Grantor heretly coveneni and.igree not to construct or permit to be constructed any structures of any kind on the easement aid'a vitfiout,appr.QyaI of the District. " The Grantor and the heirs, successors or assigns of Grantor covenant and agree rrpt,to do any.blasting or discharge any explosives within a distance of three hundred (300) feet of said line without giving rcasgpahle 64e in writing to the Grantee, its successors or assigns, of intention so to do. The rights, title, privileges and authority hereby granted shall continue to be in force until shch'timeAs.tfie, Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall permanently remove said facilities and appurtenances frpm sa'ii6finds, of,; shall otherwise permanently abandon said line', at which time all such rights, title, privileges and alxhorily hereby granted shall terminate. The Grantor also covenants to and with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed'of (and , aforesaid; has a good and lawful right and power to sell and convey same; that same are free erri cldar of.•'',,•'' " encumbrances, except as above Indicated; and that Grantor will forever warrant and defend the title to said easement and the quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever. .:Any mortgage on said land held by the Mortgagee is hereby subordinated to the rights herein granted to the Grantee,. but in all other respects the said mortgage shall remain unimpaired. i • IN -WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has Dean executed the day and year first above written. . Please sign and have notarized below I A 't t (F EPMSENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT) State of Washin ton •••••• County of I certify that I know o* 0:a' ve .sa.Wai. ory evidence that ThNM4S 0 Pt 141 LL HA o signed this instrument, on oath staW that (he/she/fty) (W. a"ere) authorized to execute the instrument and ,.•, 1.1 t�..L rtP-rr acknowledged it as the'C121T TEi{S, of r—A 4 t Ly ii2 t7yC to be I the free and voluntary act for the uses and.purposes mentioneddii t6o instrument. •'bated• a 0 3 Nota�ryy Public " St' lire of @/f ifKc131Nhgton : - Notary Public DE60RAH S. HOGAN ••.... '7itle Not Public My Appolrtitment EY4*os Apt 3. 2OD7 /� .."My Opo(ntment expires` Q, .0 3 0 Z003 (V State of Washington County of I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorizedio exe6te1the instrument and acknowledged it as the of to be the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned In the instrument. Dated: Signature of IS, aI :;r 8trn,;a1 Notary Public Title Notary Pub My appointment expires S NO EXCI`': REQU, ........:: AUG O1 2003 BOB DANIMI. 5Monuuusi, .—mr nntdurrt By. BOB DANTINI tui Addtesr. City C Clerk IIII IIIIINNN1INNNI�IININNINNI1IINII1 : � ' �• City of Edmonds :''�' 200308010410 3 PGS 121 - 5th Ave.•N. 08 - 01 - 2003 09 : 49am $21 .00 Edmonds, WA98U20.. ':.._..._.. SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT FIRST :AIM Eii'L. v�Zc�,� -�� �aII Z I This document is filed for record by RRST Property Address: 'i591S 9,4'" t?lnre W.e�st; Edmonds WA 98026 AMERiCH TITLE INSURANCE i0. as as ca motiatim ody. It has got been exomigod as to Its extation or as to its affed upon Assessor's Property Tax Parcel tNe.:..00.5133.000 033 00 the dlht IN CONSIDERAT16N of behellits tdaccnle to'6he grantors herein, the undersigned, THOMAS W, HILLMAN, Trustee, and LIN A,, : H-11L-64AN, Trustee, of THE HILLMAN FAMILY TRUST dated February 25,1998, hereby grants tq the`CI•TY QFEDMONDS, a Municipal Corporation, a permanent easement for the installation, operation, and maintenance'of a Public Acss ceover, across, through, and below the following described property, and the further right-to•femove trees, bushes, i s)dergrowth and other obstructions interfering with the location, construction, and maintenance of said Publlc Access, together with the right of access to the easement at any time for the stated purpose, WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of cea:tainlande'and premises situated in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington, described as follows: All that portion of Tract 33, MEADOWDALE BEACt•f•'SUPPL;EMENTAL PLAT, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, Pagi 42*,•ie•-Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: - Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 3$; "•::.. thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet;-` thence South in a straight line to a point on the South:.line•of,said•Tract, which is 230.29 feet West of the Southeast corner of said Tract; thence West, along the South line of said Tract to the Southwest odrner'of said Tract 33; thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to point of;6e8tri ing: . AND WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous of acquiring certain rights and'privileges-bver, across, through and below said Property. NOW THEREFORE, Grantor hereby conveys and grants to Grantee the ubfic Accessease..* nt located in the COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON, more particularly described a�. follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said parcel, said point being also.oh:the Eaaterly margin of 74th Place West, as now established; THENCE South 09°28'43" West, along the West line thereof and along said`,rrtargitY, a distance of 5.00 feet to a point of curve to the left having a radius of 20.00 feet and the TF1.AE•P..OINT.•bF BEGINNING; THENCE Southeasterly along said curve, through a central angle of 90°00'00", an.are'distdnce of 31.42 feet to a point of tangency; THENCE South 09°28'43",West, parallel to said line and said margin, a distance of 1z:00'feet', to a;point of curve to the left having a radius of 20.00 feet; THENCE Northwesterly along said, curve, through a central angle of 90'00'00", an arc distance of 3.1.42 feet to a point of tangency, said point being also on said line and margin; THENCE North 09°28'43" East, along said line and margin, a distance of 52.00 feet to the TRUE POINT OF BEGINNING. THE CITY agrees to restore to substantially the original condition such improvements as are disturbed tlmii th ,the construction, maintenance, and repair of said Public Access, provided the grantors, their heirs or assigns .shall not construct any permanent structure over, upon, or within the permanent easement. DATED THIS (e+ DAY OF 2003 . ....... ()Jl� 4rt&- /YV STAT9 OF, -WAS11INGTON.) COUNTY JaiSMOROMISR)'.." On ihis.&y p`7S6%xIjX,2peared before me described in aria ..fiw , ho*e, xeWted the , �nand foregoing signed te same as" and purposes thereiqmeritioned... UNDER M1V-AND•ICIAL SEAL -.2 --tT—me known to be the individuals tAud-afeowledged that the free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses DAY OF ARY PUBLIC In and for tl of Washington, residing at ,STkKE OF WASHINGTON, ss. ACKNOWLEDGMENT - Representative Capacity k Co0:1y of S A)Ot46 /k614- 1 certify'that I know or have satisfactory evidence that I fbend e, W (4JL L J�O$ / 1JL LJn A J is,the person who appeared before me, and said person acknowledged that he/she signed this instrument, on oath stated that he/she wis 1uthorinEdlo execute the -instrument and aacckn-oowlleed`ged it as the f K iL �s-S of .... r_• r --T to be tfie free attic voluptuary -act of4such party for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. GIVEN'Lndermy hand.i(nd official seal the day and year last above written. 44 1yotary Public in and jar the State a/ ' shington, ��i r+++++a�.. ��` .i�_-�.•1... residing at--O/n 6f S !'�����`iia►'a,`_ +My appointment expires Er This 'ural is page is attached o�L$A L datJ7✓4`' a ` .•`' _ 11/18/02 15:124 FAX 425P7279 .1 qP fa 001 AFTER RECORDING MAIL TO: Name: Rgb Michd_ Address: 7907 212`h SW. #102 City/State: Edmonds WA 9 026 NO EXCISE TAX REOWRED NOV 14 206Z BOB DAI'JTINI, Snoftom;sn udunly Treasurer gy SO$ DANTINI CONFORMED COPY- 200211140882 11/14/2002 04:10 PM Snohomish P.0003 RECORDED County ACCESS EASEMENT, UTILITY EASEMENT AND AGREEMENT Whereas "Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Iiillman trustees for the Millman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998."Are the owners of the following legally described property:' All that portion of Tract 33, supplemental plat of Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33, Thence East along the North line said Tract 220.81 feet; Thence South in a straight line to a point of the south line of said Tract, which is 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; Thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to the point of beginning. New Tax account number: 00-5133-000-033-00 Commonly know as 15915 7e place West, Edmonds, WA 98026 Whereas Michel Construction, Inc. is the owner of the following legally described property: Tract 34, supplemental plat of Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded. in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, in Snohomish County,. Washington, Except the East half thereof. New Tax account number: 00-5133-000-034-00 Commonly know as 15919 74* Place West, Edmonds, WA STREET F.__ NOW, therefore, the parties agree as follows: Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B_ Hillman, Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998, . Grantor, for valuable consideration, grants to Michel nECOVED APR 21 2Z,. PERMIT COUNTER -M 11/18/02 15:25 FAX 4257127279 Ej [a002 Construction, Inc. an access and utility easement over, under and across the following described portion of its property: Commencing at the Southwest comer of said Tract 33; Thence Easterly the South property line 115.00 feet; thence North, perpendicular to the South property line, a distance of 10.00: Thence Westerly parallel to the South property line to a point on West property line, thence Southerly the Southwest corner of said ' Tract 33. along to Michel Construction, Inc., for valuable consideration, grants to Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillman, Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998,an access and utility easement over, under and across the following described portion of its property: Commencing at the Southwest corner. of said Tract 34; Thence Easterly along the South property line 25.00 feet; thence Northerly, parallel to the West property line, to a point 10.00 South of the North property line; Thence Easterly, parallel to the North property, a distance of 95.00 feet; Thence North, perpendicular to the North property line, to the North property line; Thence West along the North property line to the Northwest corner of said Tract; Thence South along the West property line to the Southwest corner of said Tract 34. Both parties shall have the right and the duty to maintain the access road and utilities in equal shares. / 7-1-Dated this G , day of /'" 0 � � ��� , 2002. — "Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillman, T stew for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998-" Robin W. Michel, president, - T :7V '1 or Michel Construction, Inc., . STATE OF WASHINGTON ) 2 ab, 4 COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) OF W P7 i A rJ Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, do hereby certify that on this 1'#— day o f_ J�►_l t/ E /yl P� E 2002s 4 Lr; � 0 }� �.(," t`t. M t4 - personally appeared before me, to me known to be the trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998. Page 2 of 3. 11/18/02 15:25 FAX 4257127279 E� [a 003 of described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that'T hey signed and sealed the same as T&Q2free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this_LV ��Lday of . 2002. Notary Public in and for the State Washington, residing at r ,(�.j?? � 4 S STATE OF WASHLNGTON ) ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) On This .a- day W�n���2 � , 2092,—before roe, the undersigned, a Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, duly commissioned and worn,, personally appeared W. known to be the President of 1 Gt-fF t.. C dnJJ (_7 i '.) the corporation that executed the foregoing instrument, and acknowledged the said instrument to be the free and voluntary act and deed of said corporation, for the uses and purposes therein, and oath stated or proved to me on the basis of satisfactory evidence that he is authorized to execute the said instrument. GIVEN a er my hand and official seal this day of 2002. Notary Public in and for the Washington, residing at .E tit �� tt It gP W3 !t1t Cp WA-.0 -- Page 3 of 3 RETURN ADDRESS: City of Edmonds, City Clerk 2003091 ON OR 6 PGS COPY 121 5th Avenue North 09 -18 - 2003 04 : 32pm $24.00 Edmonds, WA 98020 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATIONIHOLD HARMLESS Reference #:' �12� j Grantor(s): (1) p m dL 6 Q t 1 f (2 (i'l C7. Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec 05 Twn 2 . g Qtr OR Lot Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) 00 ; 12i o �C �i�7�F2) _Assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY:A DATE: PAGE 1 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: • • 1. Description of Sub,,ect Property. APPROVED FOR RECO G: BY: DATE: PAGE OF This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of 15;q 15 ' Al T H FL , `J (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: A r 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 APPR D OR RECO,4A BY: DATE PAGE 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 Rh 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 • EA��;�jOR RE[��DAT_ OF DONE this day of.--- Do Co t r,,12 a✓' 1z PION OWNER(S) By: B Y• By STATE OF WASMNGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF bl0h5 aL 6h ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that7�,Dnl z S Unz-(G, 14I ) an- signed this instrument and acknowledged it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the. purposes mentioned in this instrument. DATED this )2- day of Def-en?b& . Zf�O Z F7= om` BLIC GTONPIRES L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADO W\COVENANT NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: 16 Z- EXHIBIT A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that portion of Tract 33, supplemental plat of Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33, Thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet; Thence South in a straight line to'a point on the south line of said Tract, which is 230.29 feet West of the Southeast comer of said Tract; Thence West along the South line of said Tract to the Southwest comer of said Tract 33; Thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Tract 33 to the point of beginning. New Tax account.number: 00-5133-000-033-00 Commonly known as 15915 74t' Place West, Ednonds, WA 98026 RETURN ADDRESS: IIIIII City of Edmonds, City Clerk II lillllllilllilllllllllllllllll IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII 121 5th Avenue North 200309181174 6 PGS 09 -18 - 2003 04 : 32pm $24.00 R E C � I'�/�E�� Edmonds, WA 98020 SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON N 0 N 9 0 2003 EDMONDS CITY CLERK COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference #•_ � iic4�- e�- jc' Grantor(s): (1) �k� Qhnd 5 ail �L i i-��i cL �. F� �a a tional on pg. Grantee(s Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec 05Twn 2,.�ng V Qtr �7UJ OR Lot Block Plat Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1) oa 51 �r 2.7 0 00 Z, _assessor's Tax Parcel ID# not yet assigned CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED FOR RECORDING BY:-&�-- DATE: PAGE ) 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: 1. Description of Subject PropexU. 11 APPROVED FOR RECO G: BY: DATE: 02� PAGE - OF This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of j✓�� !) UT N �� �J (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: r 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 D,3- /�lsy (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 L] =,DRECO ING: ATEOF — k 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 Ll APPR:oY-qPAG- OR RECO ING: B E OF arising ou t 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/bold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and sball 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. • • APP OR RECORAIN BY: DATE: A9 PAGE OF DONE this A'Al day'of i� `% ' i h�l� : 4'' C, 1, C?p,� OWNER(S) By: By �.� �.----- By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF 006'>6h ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that l�mr— 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 Def-Pi b&- , Z_C)0 Z DEBRA L. RB KA--�-E NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 9, 2003 L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADO W\COVENANT NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: ll q , 0 Z EXHIBIT A: LEGAL DESCRIPTION All that portion of Tract 33, supplemental plat of Meadowdale Beach, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33, Thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet; Thence South in a straight line to a point on the south line of said Tract, which is 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; Thence Northerly along the Westerly line of said Tract 33 to the point of beginning. New Tax account number: 00-5133-000-033-00 Commonly known as 15915 74th Place West, Ednonds, WA 98026 • JEOSCIENCES INC. al Engineering • Hydrogeology Geoenvironmental Services • Inspection & Testing zT : November 4; 2004 HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 City of Edmonds Development Services Department Building -Engineering -Planning 121 5`h Avenue North, 2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeanine L. Graf, Building Official f NOV 0 8 2004 PERMIT COUNTS n Subject: ADDENDUM TO GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING SUMMARY LETTER Hillman Residence — Permit No. 2003-0642 New Single Family Residence 15915 — 74`h Place West Edmonds, Washington Reference: Geotechnical Monitoring Summary Letter, by HWA GeoSciences Inc., dated October 18, 2004. Dear Ms. Graf - Further to our observations, conclusions, and recommendations included in the Erosion and Sedimentation Control section of the above -referenced letter, we are of the opinion that, from the geotechnical perspective, currently exposed slopes on the project site can be permanently protected against erosion using beauty bark in lieu of sod placement -or hydroseeding. However, sufficient amounts of beauty bark should be used and care should be exercised during placement of the material to ensure that no -significant spots of bare soil on the slopes are exposed. O.O Y s x9 19730 =,64th Avenue W ;z i ISiiite.,20q`u Lynnwood •WA 98036 5957 � 1 r tid�M Y•Tel f'425 Z74'•O,l�n`+ Fax 425Z:74w274i4+; ^• www:hivageosciences eom ni r rr <ci' ' November 4 2004� HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions regarding this letter or our services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. EXPIRES �2�15/2�51 Les C. Banas, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Mr. and Mrs. Hillman LCB: cb 11.04.04.report addendum 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Gebert, David From: Gebert, David Sent: Monday, November 01, 2004 10:21 AM To: Rob Michel Cc: Hawkins, Jaime; McConnell, Jeanie; Chrisman, Lyle; Graf, Jeannine Subject: Hillman residence, permit #2003-0462 Rob, I got your voice mail from Friday and your letter dated, October 29. 1 approve your request to defer the paving on the shared/joint use portions of the driveway until large trucks and equipment are finished coming in for the construction of the adjacent house in order to avoid damage to the paving. As noted in your letter, we will require a bond for this deferred paving. Also, I understand from Jaime that there are a few other Engineering items that need to be corrected before we can sign off for occupancy. Dave H L UCTIO ►, INC. E 5P, h (,r-- f Gqls- -7q, P _ RECEIVED OCT 2 9 2004 October 29, 2004 ENGINEERING DIVISION David Gebert, P.E. L /�/g City Engineer City of Edmonds 121 5t1, Avenue North l Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Permit #2003-0462 �. Dear Dave, I am requesting a temporary occupancy on the Hillman residence and bond for the completion of the ishared driveway components and the paving of the driveway. The cost to finish grade and pave is $7,000.00. We would like to wait until all the big trucks are finished coming in for the construction of the adjacent house in order to save any possible damage to the paving. Thant: you very much. Sincerely Robin W. Michel 7907 - 212TH SW, #102 EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 776-221 1 FAX (425) 778-9086 #MICHEC1061D5 f,?c. 1890 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020'• (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www dedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering December 19, 2003 Mr. and Mrs. Hillman 11410 NE 124" St. PMB 595 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Emergency Tree Clearing Mrs. Hillman: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR As I relayed to you in our telephone conversation today, I agree with your arborist's assessment of the trees on your property. They have all reached or are close to reaching their terminal age and due to the leverage they put on the slope there is a high risk of blow over and exposing large unprotected areas of the slope to the elements. For those reasons, the city is willing to consider allowing the removal of those additional eight trees under the emergency provisions of ECDC 18.45. However, the one concern the City has related to the removal of trees on steep slopes is the stability that trees provide to a slope environment through absorption of water, ability of root systems to assist in the deep seated stability of the slope and the ability of vegative cover to minimize or eliminate erosion problems. That is why most tree clearing in situations like yours are done through a tree clearing permit were a planting plan is also approved with the proposed clearing to ensure that those concerns are addressed. In your case, since one of the nine trees you wanted to remove has already blown over, the City is willing to allow the remaining eight trees to be removed under the emergency provisions with the following conditions: • Removal may not happen until you make a tree clearing application with the City. This application will be primarily concerned with reviewing the replanting plan. • All stumps and vegative cover shall be left in place. • Care must be taken to ensure that no soil or potential erosion sources are created during the removal of the logs and branches from the slope. I hope this addresses all your concerns. Please contact, myself, Rob Chave or Duane Bowman 11' you should have any questions at 771-0220. Sincerey, Ster Bullock Senior Planner Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • 1'�R► % ` AGEOSCIENCES INC. Geotechnical-Engineering Hydrogeology Geoenvironmental Services Inspection Cr Testing i ,gj 4 October 18, 2004 HWA Project No 2003-106-21 City of Edmonds Development Services Department Building -Engineering -Planning 121 5 h Avenue North, 2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 REGE.IVED 0 C T 2 o"2004 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTit CITY OF EDMONDS Attention: Ms. Jeanine L. Graf, Building Official Subject: GEOTECHNICAL MONITORING SUMMARY LETTER Hillman Residence — Permit No. 2003-0642 New Single Family Residence 15915 — 74" Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Graf: In accordance with the requirements of the City of Edmonds Special Inspection and Testing Agreement, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has provided periodical special inspection services on the referenced project since the commencement of construction activities in August 2003. Copies of our field reports have been mailed to your office along with weekly inspection reports. The purpose of this letter is to provide a statement that geotechnical aspects of the construction were performed in accordance with the project plans and specifications, and that the new development did not increase the potential for slope instability that existed prior to construction. Prior to construction, we reviewed the project plans and specification, including the geotechnical report that had been prepared by others, and design of a proposed Keystone wall. We also performed an additional subsurface exploration to aid in installation of foundation pin piles. During construction we provided monitoring and testing of the following: v t 11 } 19730 :64th Avenue W A� Suite 200 1..;. 1-1A{A ounaM r{4 • Foundation pin pile installation; • Foundation subgrade preparation; • Gradation and Proctor testing of structural fill; October 18, 2004� • HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 • Structural fill placement and compaction; • Installation of underground utilities; • Construction of rockeries; • Construction of a Keystone retaining wall; and • Erosion and sedimentation control. Foundation Pin Pile Installation A total of 63, 4-inch nominal diameter, pin piles were installed to provide foundation support for the house. A pile load test was performed on the first installed pile to verify the pile design capacity and to develop driving refusal criteria. The pile Contractor, McDowell NW Pile King, used a Bobcat 337 rubber -tired loader with a mounted BTI TB425X hammer to drive 51 vertical and 12 battered (1H:5V) piles to refusal. The refusal was set as 12 inch of penetration in 48 seconds or longer and it was met at depths ranging from 31 to 53.5 feet below grade. We verified that all installed pin piles met or exceeded the specified design vertical capacity of 12.5 kips per pile. Foundation Subgrade Preparation Exposed subgrade at the depth of shallow footings, floor slabs, grade beams, retaining wall foundations, underside of utility pipes and conduits, and access driveway was inspected to ensure its firm and unyielding state. Any soft spots and areas, as well as concentrations of organics were removed under supervision of HWA field personnel and replaced with compacted structural fill. Gradation and Proctor Testing of Structural Fill Representative samples of imported materials that were to be used as structural fill were obtained from on -site stockpiles or from the supplier, and tested in our laboratory for gradation conformance with the project plans and specifications, and for their compaction characteristics. Two gradation and two Proctor tests were performed on the collected samples of structural fill materials in accordance with testing methods ASTM D 422 and ASTM D 1557, respectively. Structural Fill Placement and Compaction HWA field personnel monitored placement and compaction of approved structural fills under the garage floor slab, behind the Keystone retaining wall, and under the 10.15.04.final report 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. October 18 2004� HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 driveway. The fills were placed in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in thickness, and were compacted using equipment ranging from a jumping jack, through plate tampers, to a vibratory drum roller. An HWA inspector performed on -site compaction testing using a nuclear density gauge. All placed structural fill was verified to be compacted to at least 95% of the material's maximum dry density. Installation of Underground Utilities We observed installation of the storm drainage and sanitary sewage drainage systems carried out by the earthwork subcontractor. The storm drainage system consisted of swales, house perimeter footing drains, retaining wall drainage pipes, catch basins and connectors to the municipal storm sewer system. Generally, both storm and sanitary sewer pipes were laid on imported bedding fill. The pipe trenches were backfilled with approved well -draining granular soils. The trench backfill above the pipes was well compacted; however, density tests were not performed due the variability of the backfill materials. Compaction was approved based on the number of passes of the compaction equipment and probing of the compacted fill. In our opinion, all underground utilities installed on site were performed in accordance with geotechnical recommendations, and the project plans and specifications. Construction of Rockeries Two rockery walls were installed on the project by a rockery subcontractor, Kirk Rockeries. The first rockery was about 72 feet long, did not exceed 4 feet in finished height, and was installed along the eastern side of the house. Up to 2 feet of overexcavation of foundation subgrade was required under the rockery due to the presence of soft and organic soils. The second rockery was constructed in the northwestern part of the site, near the existing roadway (74`h Place West). In the northwest corner of the property, construction of a hammerhead turnaround for emergency vehicles required a substantial cut in the existing slope. The cut was supported by a system of two rockery retaining walls. The upper wall was about 50 feet long and between 1 and 5 feet high. The lower rockery was located 5 to 6 feet in front of the upper wall, and down a 2H:1 V slope. The lower wall was about 62 lineal feet long and between 1 and 5 feet high in the area of the hammerhead. The lower wall was then extended by about 52 lineal feet farther south, parallel to 74a' Place West and at a setback of 10 feet from the western property line. The finished height of that section of the rockery was also between 1 and 5 feet. Placement of additional grading fill in front of the wall toe was required in order not to exceed the maximum specified finished wall height of 5 feet. 10.15.04.final report 3 HWA GEOSCIENCEs INC. October 18, 2004� • HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 We verified that the rockeries were constructed using hard, durable, two- and three- man rocks and were stacked in general accordance with standard rockery installation guidelines. Smaller rocks were placed to fill voids and spaces between larger rocks and quarry spalls were placed as backfill behind the walls. Drainage behind the walls was provided by installing 6-inch diameter perforated drainage pipes connected to the storm sewer system. Vertical clean -out pipes were connected to the wall drains as specified in the project plans. Construction of Keystone Retaining Wall A 120-foot long Keystone wall was constructed by KeyWall NW, the wall subcontractor, in the southwest part of the property. The wall ranged in height from 1 to 9.5 feet and supported the access driveway embankment. Its foundation support consisted of a continuous reinforced concrete shallow. footing. We verified that the wall was constructed in general accordance with the design by the structural engineer and with the project plans and specifications. Erosion and Sedimentation Control During our periodical visits, we observed implementation and performance of erosion and sedimentation control measures. The temporary measures included installation of silt fences downslope of areas of potential disturbance, placement of straw bales, and protection of exposed slopes and stockpiles. Protection of exposed soils against erosion was achieved using visqueen sheet covers and sandbags. After an initial period of maintenance, the property Owner retained a subcontractor specializing in erosion control work. The subcontractor, Northwest Erosion Control, Inc., provided inspection of Best Management Practices, and the implemented measures on a weekly basis. Repairs and upgrades were provided as required. Stabilization of the project site has been achieved by hydroseeding and establishing native vegetation, including shrubs and trees, on the majority of exposed slopes. In addition, all above -ground storm water drainage system elements have been installed. The remaining exposed slopes have recently been regraded to gradients not exceeding 2H:IV, and are scheduled to receive sod the week of October 25, 2004, thus, completing the permanent protection of the slopes. In conclusion, we are of the opinion that the earthwork on the project was performed iii general accordance with the geotechnical recommendations, and the project plans and specifications. We observed and verify that all disturbed areas and slopes on the project site have been, or will soon be, adequately protected and stabilized. In our 10.I5.04.fma1 report 4 HWA GEOSciENCEs INc October 18, 2004* HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 opinion, the new development has not increased the potential of slope instability at the project site. On the contrary, the improved surface and subsurface drainage contribute to an increase in long-term stability of the steep slopes. O.O Please do not hesitate to call us if you have any questions regarding this letter or our services on this project. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.. EXPIRES 12 �5 Qrj Les C. Banas, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer cc: Mr. and Mrs. Hillman LCB:Icb 10.15.04.final report 5 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 05%051.2004 09:54 4257789f' Sent By: HP LaserJet 3100; i - MICHEL CONST PAGE 02 4258727998; tday•9.04 7:57A • M, Page 212 LES nw(fis sufflne I "kin 7 "to?" co�wltNIIS May B, 2004 File No. 4863-0-04 Edmonds Building Department 250 5` Avenue N. < Edmonds, Washington 98020 re: Hillman Residence 19915 7V Place W., Edmonds, Washington Dear Sirs, At the request of Rob Michel, the project contractor, we have dispatched a survey crew to the above reference property to ascertain the elevation of the roof peak of the new residence currently under construction. To establish the height of the residence we used the invert of CBS 42A as depicted on the Road and Drainage prepared by John Mellor, dated August 30, 2001 and established the elevation of the sanitary sewer manhole at the northwest corner of the property. We find the elevation of the north rim of the' manhole to be 99.96. This elevation is indicated to 99.0 on the plan. From this bench mark we have determined the elevation of the roof sheeting at the peak to be 140.35. Should you require any additional information, please call me at 425-775-1591. Q,iy T. rRF, RECEIVED k 0v `�Ad17�A BF Sincerely, MAY 2 4 2004 PERMIT COUNTER Jeffrey Treiber P.L.S. lrytL L�os Pra3sldent j /s/ 1(NcII.Saucdind 6 Ascecialc-S. Int. I94nn J.lyd Am W.. 5unc 200. cynnrrovd, wA 9AOb6 42S-77S-1S91. 42S-672.7YYb 61 LINDA & TOM HILLMAN 11410 NE 124t" St. PM B 595 Kirkland WA 98034-4305 (425) 825-7552 linda.hiliman(a7,verizon.net December 10, 2003 Development Services Department, City of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Rob Chave, Planning Manager Regarding: Emergency Tree Removal Request for 15915 74' PI. W. Building Permit #2003-0642, Hillman Single Family Residence Dear Mr. Chave, We request approval to remove 8 hazardous trees on our property under the "emergency situation" provision of the city's Land Clearing and Tree Cutting Code, section 18.45.030G. In a recent wind storm, one such tree on our land failed at its lower trunk and fell as shown in the enclosed photo. This tree was one of 9 previously identified as highly hazardous by our arborist (Tony Shoffner of Arboricultural Consulting) in his report of October 1, 2003 which we submitted to your department. The degree of hazard is clarified in his subsequent report, enclosed. This report also includes a replanting plan that we intend to implement as soon as the hazardous trees are removed. We are concerned that the remaining 8 hazardous trees are now in imminent danger of falling, and are threateningthe structure of our new home currently under construction. Numerous large branches have also broken off many of the trees. Please review the enclosed materials and contact us at your earliest convenience. Thank you. Sincerely, 0,-,o wjy---� enclosures M L"I• :tv 117 I'a�e IRMO r4v# mi v I or. TERRACE, WA • October 16, 2003 Tom and Lin Hillman 11410 NE 124thSt. PMg 595 Kirkland, WA 98034-4305 RE: Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan,15915 74th PI. W., Edmonds. This Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan is provided as a means of specifying tree replacement as mitigation for the trees proposed to be removed and to recommend restoration measures for enhancement of the understory on the slope west of the proposed home on lot 33 located at the existing address of 15915 74th PI. W. in the city of Edmonds, WA. The contents of this plan will include the following: 1. A description of the present conditions and hazards posed by the trees of concern; 2. A description of the approach to replacement and enhancement plantings and intended objectives; 3. Tree replacement recommendations including numbers, species, sizes and locations; 4. Enhancement shrub planting recommendations including numbers, species, sizes and locations; 5. Planting methods and care, and b. Maintenance and monitoring specifications: Please see the accompanying map for a visual representation of the recommended tree replacement and forest enhancement planting plan. II. Project Description The trees proposed for removal are located upon the slope, east of the location of the proposed home. The trees proposed to be removed are big -leaf maples (Ater macropnyllum) and red alders (Alms rubs), both relatively fast- growing, short-lived species that tend to decline rapidly and are prone to failure as they advance In age. In addition to these natural growth strategies, these trees have been found to pose high hazards due to the presence of trunk rot I decay and high windsnap ratings. Respectively, trees meeting these descriptions have been given condition ratings of 4 and 5, each of equal weight in terms of the hazard potential posed by trees with the given ratings. The difference in the rating is only due to the type of defect, not the severity of it, and therefore trees with condition ratings of 4 and 5 should be given equal importance in terms of the hazards they pose. Because of the high hazard potentials posed by trees with condition ratings of 4 and 5, all of these trees were recommended to be considered for removal in order to remove the hazards they pose. A total of 9 trees on lot 33 were given a rating of either 4 or 5 and therefore are recommended to be considered for removal in order to eliminate the hazards they pose. Please see the Tree Condition Evaluation and Restoration Plan, dated October 1, 2003, for descriptions of the conditions of the trees on lot 33 and the reasons for the concerns. Not only are these trees undesirable in terms of the hazards they pose, but also in terms of their short-lived nature. They are primary species in forest succession and precede more climax species, namely longer -lived evergreens. These trees will likely begin to decline soon creating greater hazards and requiring removal before failure occurs. The understory beneath these trees is somewhat sparse and could be greatly enhanced through planting with native understory species with the intention of increasing the overall diversity, providing soil cover, aiding in slope stabilization and Increasing the overall aesthetics of the forest area. The understory could also benefit In terms of its succession by introducing species not currently dominant, or even present, on the site. Therefore, this site is an excellent candidate for replacing the hazard trees with more climax, regionally and site common species to both Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan Lot 33, Tom and Linda Hillman October 16, 2003 1 Arboricultural Consulting remove the hazards and introduce new tree and shrub species as a form of accelerated succession. The window prior to construction of the home provides an ideal opportunity for the removal, and planting during the rainy season J will give the plants the best conditions to begin establishment. III. Goals, Objectives and Project Approach The goals and objectives of this plan ultimately determine the approach taken to achieve them, and they must take several factors into consideration. The factors for this project include, but are not limited to, site conditions, proposed developrrlOnt and land use, available planting area, species present on site, species common to the general area, requirements of the local jurisdiction and desires of the homeowners. The goals and objectives of this plan are as follows: 1. To mitigate for the loss of the 9 trees located on the slope east of the home; 2. Over time, to provide for advanced succession of the forest by replacing the removed trees with more desirable, climax species that are longer lived and therefore less prone to failure than the existing trees; 3. To compliment the more desirable, climax tree species with understory plantings of shrub species intended to enhance the forest understory, improving the structure, diversity and appearance of the forest; 4. To acheive a high establishment success rate in the given site conditions, and 5. To provide for slope stabilization and to limit surface soil erosion. In order to achieve these goals and objectives, the following approach is specified: 1. Remove the existing hazardous trees, while leaving the stumps in place in order to maintain some of the slope stabilization functions provided by their root systems; 2. Replace the removed trees with more climax status species at a 2:1 ratio. Smaller sizes of trees are preferred over larger sizes as they are more capable of establishing, surviving and adapting to the site ~ conditions, and 3. Plant native shrub species in the understory at a 3:1 ratio to the numbers of removed trees. Like the replacement trees, smaller sizes of shrubs are preferred as they are more capable of surviving, establishing and adapting to the site conditions. IV. Tree Replacement and Enhancement Plantings The recommended tree replacement ratio is 2 trees for each of the 9 trees removed for a total of 18 replacement trees planted. In order to provide greater ground cover, the understory shrub species are recommended to equal a replacement ratio of 3:1 for a total of 27 shrubs to planted, The total number of trees and shrubs to be planted (45) equals a 5:1 replacement ratio for the 9 trees to be removed. The main criteria for the selection of species, sizes, spacings and numbers are their role as part of forest succession, their adaptability to the site conditions, their ability to contribute to slope stabilization and their relative density and distribution in similarly forested areas. As previously stated, smaller plant stock are preferred as they are more readily adaptable to new site conditions, and therefore more likely to establish successfully in such conditions and where irrigation may be limited. The following species, sizes, spacings and numbers are specified for the replacement and enhancement plantings: Tree Spies Sizes Spacings #s (pacific madrone (Arbutus menziesli) 2 gallon 15' o.c. 6 Western red cedar (Thuja plicata) 5 gallon 15' o.c. 6 Western hemlok (Tsuga heterophylla) 5 gallon 15' o.c. 6 Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan Lot 33, Tom and Linda Hillman October 16, 2003 2 Arboricultural Consulting Shrub SWcies 5im Spacings#!a Vine maple (Ater cirUnatum) 2 gallon 5' o.c. 3 Oregon grape (Berberis nervosa) 2 gallon 5' o.c. 4 Salal (Gaultheria shallop) 2 gallon 5' o.c. 16 Oceanspray (Holodiscus discolo►) 2 gallon 5' o.c. 4 The Pacific madrones are specified to be planted out of 2 gallon containers, as opposed to 5 gallon containers like the other trees, mainly due to their limited availability in the nursery trade in such large containers. I have not seen madrones available in anything containers larger than 2 gallon. This species is the best of the three in terms of its contribution to slope stabilization and therefore is an important component of the tree replacement. In addition, due to their sensitive nature, 2 gallon size madrones will suffer less transplant shock than if planted out from larger stock. The accompanying map shows an example of planting distribution. While it is not necessary that this design is followed, it is recommended that the trees are given at least the minimum spacing to allow for proper growth and development In addition, it is important that the plantings are not planted too close to the maple stumps, as the stump sprouts that grow from the stumps may shade the plantings, limiting their ability to establish. IVA. Plant Cost Estimates , Following are my estimates for the plant and planting costs for this project: i r plan Number of plants Tot.gl, 2 gallon $15.00 33 $495.00 5 gallon $25 00 12 $300.00 TOTAL $795.00 V. Planting Specifications In order to increase the likelihood of survival, it is important that the plants are planted properly and at the right time. In situations such as this, where irrigation is limited to rainfall and where the plants are to be planted on very steep slopes, there are particular specifications to follow, in addition to the normal planting recommendations. Following are the recommended planting specifications for this project: 1. The planting areas should be properly prepared prior to planting. This would include removal of invasive plants, namely Himalayan blackberry (Rubus discolor] and English Ivy (Hedera helix), the clearance of understory debris. Existing native species should not be removed to accommodate the proposed plantings. However, if sufficient light is not available, certain species, such as saimonberry (Rubus spectabilis) and osoberry (Oemlaria cerasiformis) can be cut back to the ground surface as a temporary measure. These species will eventually resprout new growth, therefore cutting them back is not a concern; 2. All planting should be done during dormancy, preferably during the rainy season, between approximately November and March, but no later than easy March; 3. Being planted into a slope, it is important to insure that the entire root ball is buried within the soil and that the surface of the root ball is at the same level as the soil surface. Preferably, the plants would be positioned vertically on more flat portions of the soil surface along the slope, rather than into the slope at an angle. if however, no flat surfaces can be found, it will be acceptable to plant the plants into the slope at an angle. Also, it is important that the root balls are firmly embedded into the soil. Therefore, it is recommended that the holes for the rootballs are dug to the same diameter as the rootballs themselves; 4. Mulch, either wood chip or composted matter, should be spread around the base of each plant to a depth of no less than 4 inches and in an area no less than 3 feet in diameter. The mulch should not come into contact with the tree/shrub stem; and Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan Lot 33, tom and Linda Hillnaa October 16, 2003 3 Arboricultural Consulting 5. If necessary, trees may need to be staked to prevent them from falling out of the planting hole. However, smaller stock, such as those specified, should not need staking if planted properly and in the correct locations upon the slope. VI. Use Of This Report and Limitations This .Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan is provided to Tom and Lin Hillman as a means of specifying tree replacement and forest enhancement plantings on the site of the proposed lot 33 in the City of Edmonds, WA. This plan can only make recommendations for plantings and cannot guarantee success of the planting, as the success is ultimately due to the quality of stock and is determined by those responsible for installing the plantings. In addition, I cannot guarantee that all of the species specified will be available at the time they are needed. Reports may be adversely affected due to the physical condition of the site and the difficulty of access which may lead to observation or evaluation difficulties. The work for this report has conformed to the standard of care employed by consulting arborists. No other representation or warranty is made concerning the work or this report and any implied representation or warranty is disclaimed. Tony Shoffner, Consulting Arborist / Horticulturist ISA Certified Arborist #PN-0909A Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists Tree Replacement and Forest Enhancement Plan Lot 33, 7'om and Linda Hillman October 16, 2003 4 Arboricultural Consulting 0 PLANTING PLAN MAP Hillman Lot 33 Edmonds, WA :FL L z 0 A 7. R 4 0-- N') LEGEND Replacement Tree Pocf1c modrone (Arbutus menz6i� Western red -ado., ( Thujj photo) Western hemlock (7sugo heteropW1q).: 5hwLwjn0 Oregon Grope (BerberZ5 nervo-so) 501ol (&-,Yffbeb- s&-11w) Oceonsproy (Hob&scus discolor Vint: vlopf (Acercirclnaum) 8-3-i-ina- v It. H M 0 10 20 30 Atbodculfti& Consuffina TREE REPLACEMENT AND Tony Shoffner ENHANCEMENT PLANTING PLAN Consulting Arborist, Horticulturist LOT 33 ISA Certified Arborist #PN-OM CrTY OF EDMONOS, WA Member, American Society of Consulting Arborists PO Box 135 Tom on24th cl Lin Hillman Mounitake Terrace, WA 11410 1St PMB 5 5 KirklIndl. WA 98034-43905 98043-0135 Date: October 15. 2003 I Ph—.WFa: (""77'.0&'0 AnthonyV. trw. iWo:e(n20w6M)7n303t-2971 I wid.conad Ing RA Certired'khaborist IPN-0909A; Member, Amerkan Society of ConvAng kborhts s, fir HWAGEOSCIENCES INC r Geotechnical Engineering • Hydrogeology Geoem,honmental Services Inspection Testing 'Au t '15 ' 2003 .l..HWAPr9jectNo.2003-106-21 RECEIVED City of Edmonds Development Services Department AU 19 Building -Engineering -Planning BUILDING DEPT, 121 5`h Avenue North, 2nd Floor Edmonds, WA 98020 Attention: Ms. E. Marie Harrison, CPT Subject: GEOTECHNICAL DECLARATION Hillman Residence — Project 02-565 Proposed New Single Family Residence 15915 — 74th Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Harrison: As required by the City of Edmonds Special Inspection and Testing Agreement, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) reviewed the following documents pertaining to the above -referenced project: J • Geotechnical report by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated December 1990; • Geotechnical report by Mr. Dennis Bruce, P.E., dated March 29, 2001; • Geotechnical declaration and statement of risk by Mr. Dennis Bruce, P.E., dated December 9, 2002; • Geotechnical review letter by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated February 4, 2003; • Follow-up geotechnical report by Mr. Dennis Bruce, P.E., dated April 4, 2003, as a response to City of Edmonds' comments; • Addendum geotechnical review by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated May 23, 2003; • Geotechnical review by Mr. Dennis Bruce, P.E., dated June 23, 2003; • Structural plans by Baker Engineers,. Inc., P.S., dated November 19, 2002, and revised August 5, 2003; and • Grading, drainage and erosion control plans by Donna L. Breske, P.E., dated October 22, 2002, and revised July 24, 2003; 19730:- 641Avenue W r .Swte.200 l; ` Lynnwood,;WA 98036 5957 ' �; z Fax.'425 774 2714 , + - - ,WWW.11w�fOSCICIICCS.COfD�',..;�S:L 5:.� August 15, 2003 • HWA Project No. 2003-106-21 As a result of our review, we are of the opinion that the proposed foundation system is sufficient for the subsurface conditions folund on the project site to support the planned residential structure, provided that construction is carried out in accordance with the approved project plans and specifications. In our opinion, the planned development can improve surface and subsurface drainage,) thereby, potentially increasing site stability and reducing any previously existing risk of slope instability. HWA will provide monitoring of the geotechnical aspects of construction of the planned development to fulfill the duties and responsibilities of the Special Inspector as described in the signed agreement. We trust this geotechnical declaration meets your requirements at this time —Please call if you have any questions. Sincerely, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Tr. 4MZM Les C. Banas, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer LCB:Icb 'cc: Mr. and Mrs. Hillman 08.15.03.letter 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. Associated Earth Sciences,, Inc. ����IVE® - ® ® ® AUG- 4 2001, BUILDING DEFT. July 28, 2003 Project No..KE03008A -City of Edmonds Community.Services Department 121 5' Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf. _ • Subject: - Geotechnical Plan Review Hillman Residence 15915 74`'', Place West ` Edmonds, Washington References: Hillman Residence Geotechnical Plan Review Associated Earth Sciences,; Inc., July 16, 2003 Hillman Drainage Swale Detail Donna L: Breske,-P.E., July 22, 2003 14' Street Keystote Block Wall _ Structural Analysis Revision -No: 1 Custom Design and -Engineering, June 23, 2003 Dear- Ms. Graf:. As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, .Inc. (AESI) has, received the.above=referenced drainage 'swale and Keystone wall information , in response to our July 16,- 2003 plan review comments, item nos. 4 -and 5. Please see the :attached documents. Review of these items finds that they meet the intent'of the comment items, and' should be incorporated into the current plans_ Provided that the note and detail, additions recommended in comment item nos. 1 and.2 are added, to the final plan set, and that the City'receives confirmation from Baker Engineers concerning the adequacy of .the .pile, spacing, further geotechnical plan review by AESI should not be required. - 1 _ 91 1 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425.827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5424 • DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 6621 Foster Slough Rd. Snohomish, WA 98290 FAX COVER SHEET DATE:P*Z 2, 2003 TO: aAW"' . 9x C to PHONE: 425-334-9980 FAX: 425-334-7380 PHONE NO. 4as- FAX NO. $ 2 '7 - 542 g RE: HZLL14 AN pR/ #06 E SWAI-9 NUMBER OF PAGES INCLUDING THIS COVER SHEET: ate, Cll6r �¢/ �vana / „,� .gyp lj/LLMf}N tG'm.�°'ga -aeu�0edza�gK .�^ SAP �L DRAINAGE - DETENTION - INSPECTION - GRADING & TESC SEWER & WATER - FEAS®ILTTY - SITE DEVELOPMENT W. DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE NOTES. � I. DOWNSPOUTS CONVEYING ROOFTOP FLAWS FROM 'I'I-Ifi GARAGE AND C B 2 KOTE: THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE HOUSE TO BE ROUTED TO DETENTION � SU RFA CE FLOWFROM S V F DRAINS MAY BE CONNECTED TO CB'S #I AND #2. \ DRIVEWAY ARE Tip BE GPP P[NE#I. ROOF To C8 *1, PENCE, IT I5 NO 2. DOWNSP OUTS NE«S-SARY TO SET '_T?3P of PORTION OF THE HOUSE ARE TO BE ROUTED TO DETENTION PIPE 42. \ TO CAPTURE SURFRCE FL E ROOF DRAINS MAY BE CONNECTED TO CB'S 03 AND ` L - RD 9'Pr C C—13 #Z D`c' TYPE - I F� ToPa 112 -16+/._ IE(S = i09.QI3 OAS' w G MTO sue MA 1 W FT = 115' / 3' w DRAIN14GE 1-% sEE ROCK t iNEV av -- J A I - toNTIDL �TaUcruRE C8 TYPE - i r- TaP=1. fE(N-5)= (07.S-IN IE(w) = 107.5- o uT W%4RATED LM Jy • • r. ), - 40 — 11 " LINE S WALE W'Ty 4RAVEL 1 fr ` 2 " IH 5,riw --__==— --�-•� 14 C8 *S-TYP TO P IG S) w1C*gf . D"MrGE 5WALE CROSS Ssc7-poN N.T. s. Cg#;z 34"x 12" ADS REDUCER ORIENT AS SHOWN TO —`—"1 PREVENT AIRLOCK. 0.83 60 LF N 31- DE TAN TION PIPE #1-ADS, RE-Duca l tv,sfAU. AT) oN D ETA} 1 L - k1 T [" 07/j5/2003 12:37 4258275424 AESI _ Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. July 16, 2003 Project No.KE03008A City of Edmonds Community Services Department 121 5`h Avenue. North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf Subject: Geotechnical Plan Review Hillman Residence 15915 74" Place West Edmonds, Washington References: Hillman Residence Addendum Geotechnical Review Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., May 22, 2003 Geotechnical Review - Hillman. Residence Plans 15915 74i1' Pl. W, Edmonds. Washington Dennis M. Bruce, P.E., April 4, 2003 PAGE 01/03 JUL 16 2063 PERMIT COUNTER Hillman Residence Architectural Plans Carl J. Colson Architect, Revision No. 2, Sheets A-1.3 through A-4.2 June 20, 2003 Grading Plan for Tom and, Lin Hillman Donna L Breske, P.E., Revision No. 1, Sheets 2 of 2 April 4, 2003 Hillman Residence Foundation Plans Baker Engineers, Inc„ Revision No. 1. Sheets S1 through S6 June 19, 2003 Dear Ms. Graf: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed a geotechnical review of the above -referenced Hillman residence plan set, and the review letter by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. AESI also reviewed a Keystone wall design detail by Alex K. Moroseos, P.E., which Was not included in the plan set. Our plan review has been completed to verify that earlier 91 1 FiFth AvcrwC.Su ILe 100 • Y,irkiirld WA 9z033 . Phone '125 �.17..7701 . F.,x 125 f`.27 'i4)� 07/16/2003 12:37 425B275424 AESI PAGE 02/03 i geotechnical review comments contained in the above -referenced AESI letter have been incorporated into the current plans. Our review indicates that the current plans substantially comply with the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). We offer the following comments, which should be added as details and notes to the existing plans, but subsequent plan review of the revisions are not required by AESI. 1. Add note to foundation plan General Structural Notes, Sheet S1: Piles should be embedded in bearing soils at a minimum depth of 25 feet below existing grades. 2. Add detail to Retaining Wall With. Slab Detail I-S1, Sheet S1: Show a 12-inch-wide column of drain rock extending up the back of the retaining wall from the footing drain to within I foot of the ground surface. The drain rock should be capped with a layer of Mirafi 140N filter fabric overlain by on -site soil. 3. Check foundation grade beam spans between pile caps. Current spans range approximately between 10 to 20 feet, which appears excessive based upon similar local projects. 4. Include in the plans the Keystone wall construction detail for the driveway fill designed by Alex K. Moroseos, P.E. The detail should show grid placement and length, drainage, and construction details. Cursory review of the wall detail by AESI indicates that the proposed grid lengths and number of grids are insufficient to support the fill. Revise as necessary. 5. Add notes identifying the perimeter drainage trench referenced in the review letter by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. The drain within the rockery 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 gravel drainage trench and shallow surface swale should be placed within the flat portion of the 15-foot building setback, at least 10 feet back from the rockery. These drainage features would be intended to intercept slope surface flow and ground water seepage prior to flow reaching the rockery and construction site. M „07/15/2003 12:37 42582754 4 AESI PAGE 03/03 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 EXPIRES '12oer G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer GAM/0 KEA7nORA3 Pr0Jee«\2(x)31x18\KE\wP - w=K 3 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer R CEIVM June 23, 2003 �i..: 2 e LLJ3 BUILDING DEPT. City of Edmonds c/o Tom and Linda Hillman 11410 NE 1241h St. PMB 595 Kirkland, WA 98034-4305 TREE TcltS Subject: Ge6fiech'n1cai Review ► iilrrian Residence Plans 15915 74th PI. W, Edmonds, WA Plan Check No. 02-565 This engineering report presents the results of a tyeotechnical evaluation of the Hillman house Plans for the new residence at 15915 74t Pl. W, Edmonds, Washington. REFERENCES: • Geotechnical Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. (March 29, 2001 — Revised April 4, 2003; June 28, 2002; April 4, 2003) • City of Edmonds Geotechnicali Consultant Report (AESI, Inc.) dated May 23, 2003 • Residence Structural Foundation Plans by Baker Engineers, Inc. (Sheets S-1, S- 2A, S-2B, S-3, S-5, and S-6) dated June 19, 2003 Grading Plan by Donna Breske, P.E. dated June 9, 2003 GEOTECHNICAL BACKGROUND: This engineer has undertaken numerous investigations of the Hillman Lots (Lots Nos. 33, 34). These investigations have included test pits, test trenches, review of historical bore hole data, and numerous on -site observations. The recommendations of this engineer were to found the Hillman residence on standard, reinforced, continuous footings founded in the dense sub -grade. All adjacent residences in the vicinity of this property have been founded on standard reinforced (or possibly non -reinforced foundations if sufficiently old) footings in relatively shallow soils. None of these homes have experienced any significant settlements or foundation problems. SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE. DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 ;;ti .120.p):546-9217' FAX.546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Tom and Linda Hillman June 23, 2003 Page 2 The City of Edmonds has retained outside consultants (Associated Earth Sciences, Inc.) to review geotechnical investigation and foundation recommendations. AESI, Inc.'s latest report (May 23, 20'03) concludes that..."No definite indications of current deep-seated landsliding are present. Given these site conditions, change in the current landslide hazard risk designation does not appear to be justified." Currently, the Landslide Hazard Map depicts a hazard risk as ranging between 2 and 30 percent. Interestingly enough, the original hazard risk was depicted at 90 percent, circa 1976. No landslide hazard activity has occurred since 1976. The May 23, 2003 AESI, Inc. Report continues..."To mitigate the potential for deep-seated landsliding, we propose lithe use of deep foundations." It is relevant to note that AESI,, Inc. did no direct investigation, no observation of any on -site bore holes, test pits, or test trenches. The City of Edmonds has provided no specific direction or evaluation of the May 23, 2003 AESI, Inc. Report other than a May 28, 2003 Memo stating "Structural review comments and geotechnical review comments are attached. Please respond." This engineer reiterates the geotechnical criteria for standard reinforced footings are valid. Nevertheless, project owners have concluded to submit a foundation design incorporating piling. HILLMAN FOUNDATION PLANS — PIN -PILES WITH REINFORCED GRADE BEAM: This engineer has reviewed the! Baker Engineer's Foundation Plans incorporating 4-inch diameter pin -piles and reinforced grade beam (see Plans). This foundation design utilizes 4-inch diameter pin -piles driven to refusal depths (as monitored on -site by a qualified, experienced geotechnical engineer). Similar pin -pile designs have been used extensively in the Puget Sound area with documented load capacities and performance criteria (submitted separately to City of Edmonds). Each properly driven, 4-inch diameter pipe -pile will provide a minimum of 20,000 pounds (10 tons) vertical capacity. Extensive historical testing has verified lateral load capacity to be a minimum of 20 percent of the vertical load. Additionally, the City of Edmonds c/o Tom and Linda Hillman June 23, 2003 Page 3 structural designs incorporate select locations of battered piles to resist any potential lateral forces. The battered piles shall be driven at a declination of 1 H:5V. Additionally, the reinforced grade beam design is significantly massive and heavily reinforced. This engineer anticipates refusal depths to be less than 30 feet. The Project Plans also include a perimeter drainage trench with perforated pipe and gravel to collect any slope seepage and direct it to the project drainage system. The east garage retaining wall will function as a "catchment wall" to mitigate any potential slope debris flow. NOTE: March 2003 slope test pits verified extremely dense, native, glacially consolidated soils. SUMMARY: Standard reinforced concrete foundation footings are a valid geotechnical design for the proposed Hillman residence. To expedite the permit and review process, owners have chosen to use a deep foundation system: 4-inch pin -piles with reinforced grade beams. The Foundation Design (by Baker Engineers) is geotechnically approved for the Hillman residence, and more than complies with the recommendations of the geotechnical investigation and Report. • On -site inspections by a qualified, experienced geotechnical engineer to verify proper installation of pipe -piles. Geotechnical inspections to verify installation, .of perimeter drainage ditch and proper "tie-ins" to the overall storm water system. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. VOZA-�,kQ�� Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engine DMB:abj cc: Michel Construction, Inc. \- Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer April 4, 2003 City of Edmonds Community Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 Subject: Additional Geotechnical Investigation Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington OTREET FILE RECEIVED APR 1 1 2003 PERMIT COUNTER This engineering report presents the results of additional geotechnical investigations for the Hillman property! (Lots 33 and 34), approximate address 15915 - 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington. This additional geotechnical investigation was required due to City of Edmonds comments from Mr. Dave Gebbert, P.E., dated February 28, 2003. REFERENCES: • Geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendations by D. Bruce, P.E., dated March 29, 2001, revised April 4, 2003. • Geotechnical criteria / buffer reduction report by D. Bruce, P.E., dated June 28, 2002. • Geotechnical declaration and statement of risk by D. Bruce, P.E., dated December 9, 2002, revised April 4, 2003. • Drainage report by Donna Breske, P.E., dated October 30, 2002. • Hillman residence geotechnical ireview by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated February 4, 2003. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION A review of A.E.S., Inc., February 4, 2003 letter, as well as discussions by this engineer with G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G., indicated concerns regarding . possible historic landslide activity and desire for additional subsurface information. Eastern Slope (Pits 1 through 3): A series of shallow test holes were dug on March 4, 2003 along the eastern slope of the Hillman property (see test hole log). A total of five (5) test holes were dug SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page two to depths of four and one-half feet (4-1/2'.) of the sloped portion of the property (see photographs dated March 4, 2003, by D. Bruce, P.E.). The three southerly test holes encountered similar subgrade conditions: Dense sands with gravels (see photographs of excavated material). No water was encountered in any of these three southerly test holes. Test hole walls remained vertical and stable,: with no sloughing or caving. This engineer evaluated the holes six hours after excavation. Northern Pit No. 5 (adjacent City of Edmonds surface water drainage systemy This northern pit also encountered dense sands with gravels. No sloughing or caving of the hole occurred. No water was encountered in the test hole (six hours after excavation). Pit No. 4: Pit No. 4 encountered dense sands with gravels (similar to Pits 1, 2, 3 and 5.) Pit No. 4 remained stable, with no sloughing or caving. A very slight seepage trickle was observed at the base of Pit No. 4, approximately six hours after excavation. The water level was immeasurable in the bottom of the hole. Mere trace of water. See photos. Additionally, this engineer conducted an extensive visual evaluation of mature trees on the eastern slope face (see photos). No significant leaning or evidence of slope face movement was observed. Note: This engineer did observe one tree on the flatter portion of the property that had a modest down slope lean. This engineer also observed a nearby tree that had a modest up slope lean. It is most .likely that these observed unique leans are due to normal sunlight -seeking growth. Additional examination of the eastern slope verified dense subgrade soils and dense vegetation growth. DEEP BORINGS: This engineer has reviewed two deep soil test borings performed by Geotech Consultants in December of 1990, on which is now the Hillman property (see attached four bore hole logs). City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page three An examination of the bore hole data verifies very dense subgrade strata consisting of silty sand. Shallow conditions (less than fifteen feet) verify.blow counts greater than ten blows per foot. The.findings of these 1990 bore holes are consistent with this engineer's test pits discussed in the March 29, 2001 report (revised April 4, 2003.) REGIONAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION / OBSERVATIONS: This engineer conducted additional evaluations of nearby residences (to the Hillman property). A brick residence exists down slope and slightly north of the Hillman property (see photo of brick house with reddish -brown roof). Brick structures are highly reflective of any ground movement or subsurface instabilities. This house revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: No cracking, no foundation settlement, no dislocation of exterior brick work. The location of this brick house is directly below a regional "gully" considerably north of the Hillman property (see regional site plan). Visual observation of the many existing (for numerous years) homes directly west of the Hillman property also verified no evidence of any geotechnical distress: No foundation cracking, no settlements, no shifting or movement of sloping driveways. 'An existing residence lies approximately two hundred feet (200') feet to the south of the Hillman property. This residence is located at the base of a significantly steeper slope than exists east of the Hillman property. No evidence of any slippage, sliding or adverse impacts to the residence was observed. DISCUSSION: This engineer is extremely familiar with regional -soil conditions, having done extensive investigation and on -site inspections for a recent home in the Lorian Woods Development (approximately 800' to the south). Further, this engineer is currently undertaking investigations for a rebuilding of a Meadowdale Road house (destroyed by fire two years ago). Another new house (within the past two years) was constructed on a waterfront lot approximately 900' southwesterly of the Hillman property. . City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page four In all regional cases, the most important issue for geotechnical stability is proper drainage control. The Hillman property is underlain by dense, stable subgrade soils to be verified by on -site geotechnical inspections during construction. City of Edmonds drain (between Lots 32 and 33) effectively collects and controls surface water in the drain's vicinity. The Hillman property will control its water in accordance with the drainage design by Donna Breske, P.E. This engineer observes no evidence of any improper or uncontrolled surface water discharge from the up slope properties to the east. The dense, mature vegetation on the slope face further evidences slope stability. By constructing a reinforced concrete foundation and stem wall, the Hillman residence will improve overall slope stability. Further, the code -required footing drains will reduce and control ground water seepage pressures. If desired, although not geotechnically necessary, a modest erosional stabilization wall could be constructed at or near the toe of the eastern slope. Such "debris' containment walls" normally consisting of stacked ecology blocks or equivalent, provide additional assurance that surficial erosional flow does not impact the residence. Given the dense vegetation growth on the slope face, this engineer believes that such a debris containment wall is not necessary. SUMMARY: • The Hillman property has been verified to be geotechnically stable. Test pits, deep borings and recent slope face investigations have verified stable geotechnical conditions. • The City of Edmonds surface water drainage system functions properly. • The proposed Hillman residence will comply with the approved drainage plan. • On -site geotechnical inspections by a qualified, experience geotechnical engineer will verify proper footing placement and subgrade conditions. City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page five • The installation of a reinforced concrete foundation and stem wall will improve overall property integrity. The 1979 landslide hazards investigation report by Roger Lowe Associates provided a good base map for investigation and geotechnical recommendations. The 1979 report identified. many areas as having a 90% likelihood of failure and landslide. The recommendations. were modified in 1985 by GeoEngineers, where evidently many 90% likely zones were reduced to 30% likely slide zones. This engineer respects the credentials and conclusions'of Roger Lowe and GeoEngineers, but points out the subjective nature of trying to predict landslides. If there are any questions,.do not hesitate to call. `• s 1Z123! a &a Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineers BM' 9 II (3) 98 �,' i 0.44,E SS MH ►I _ B 9g _ - -- " Soo \—�— �� II APLE M A 104 _ 102 - ALDER 10 LD 4AQE 306 _ 3 L S I AL R' A 0 BE9O _ 6 'AL 708 - A 14 AL _ 11 - Ep4 i -. ER 20 I I - kpI 44" E)�L (2) -CTNW000 41, L� R214 L AL E 1 A I- 10 - 7�0 R 14 2 L R 4 LO II 11 'AL FR ER 16l'13 ALDER 4L ER 18 Ij A D LOE B �! 116 ALDER 14 ALDER 34 3' CAL. ER 34 A 0 12 AL ER 6 ER 2 I A DER 12 / ALDER 4 I OE N " iy R 3 ALDER 6- 41 Mar ALOE B ER 10: / ALOE 1 f •\•� ,ALOE9_1.fi- ALDER - LO R B A DEY4 (31 M PL `=FEA-.--...... '--- tie =1 8F _ O)I 1 ALDER, qCI .. 122 \ 1 TOE _1 }NI ' lO 0 �q I (4 A L2§2 ta� — P�.� _ I C .Cy126 _ _ \ 14 0 332 _ Air lo AL 16 la \�ia`� 4 �40 1 3g 36 (2] MA .. I 1Qv_ 1 _ \ \\ SS 52 0._AR1 Arb 6 14B - 16.7 ` \\ Ss 50 - \\ 16�.- - -- - -- 0 - - \ - - \ 162 - 164 - 166 160 — QTP-3 LEGEND QTP-1. APPROXIMATE' TEST' PIT LOCATION e B-1:*APPROXIMATE' BORING' LOCATION B 2. 0 TP-1� DIRT ACCESS" ROAD 0 a O oC w J a 0 3 O a a W a 75TH PLACE WEST GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. ��x1 7: A SITE EXPLORATION PLAN MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL. PLAT EDMONDS,, WASHINGTON ./ob No.: Date: Plole: 90391 DEC 1990 N.T.S, 2' TEST PIT 1 0 r 5 F_ Brown, very silty SAND with organics, very moist, loose Tan, silty SAND, few organics, fine grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense. Gray, slightly silty SAND, few organics, fine grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense. 10 Gray, mottled SILT with some intermixed sand, fractured, medium ML Plastic, wet, soft to medium stiff. Becomes .blue -gray, highly fractured. 15 SM Blue -gray, silty SAND, fine grained, very wet, medium -dense. Test pit terminated at 15 feet below existing grade on 9/10/90. Slight groundwater seepage encountered at 14 1/2 .feet during excavation. Slight caving above 4 feet. ,Jt,GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,. INC. TEST PIT LOGS MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 DRW 3 1 0 5 10 15 r TEST PIT 2 • Mottled silty SAND with organics, fine to coarse grained, wet, loose. Blue -gray SILT with intermixed lenses of peat, some small sand lenses, plastic, wet, soft. (Log encountered) Gray, silty SAND, some tree debris, fine to medium -grained, very wet, loose to medium -dense. Extensive tree debris encountered. Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade on 9/10/90. Slight groundwater seepage encountered below 7 1/2 feet during excavation Caving below 7 1/2 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON No:' Date: Cogged by: Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 DRW 4 nip TEST PIT 3 0 USCS h. A_ i d_�Topso���� P X 10 Tan, silty SAND, medium grained, loose, wet Blue -gray sandy SILT with some intermixed peat, nonplastic, wet, loose. SM Blue -gray silty SAND with some intermixed peat. �n 11 9111 Blue-gray, slightly sandy SILT, low to medium plasticity, wet, soft to medium stiff. Blue -gray, silty SAND, medium grained, very wet, loose to medium -dense. Test pit terminated at 15 feet below existing grade on 9/10/90. Groundwater seepage encountered at 7 1/2 feet during excavation. Some caving at 7 1/2 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS. WASHINGTON Job No: Date: Loggeday °Plate. 90393 DEC 1990 ORW 5 o o FQ\e �C, F°l* USCS SM F711 9 36 2 4 5 23 3 10 10 26 4 22 15 43 5 12 20 23 6. 14 25 15 7 31 30 17 8 35. kR 40 t— 27 19 123 BORING 1 Dark brown, silty SAND with organics, fine-grained, wet, loose. Gray to blue -gray silty SAND, trace gravel, fine grained, wet, very loose to loose. Blue -gray sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, medium stiff to very stiff. (occasional intermixed sand lenses) Blue -gray silty SAND, silt lenses, fine grained, wet, loose to medium - dense. Blue -gray silty SAND with some gravel, silt lenses, fine grained, wet, medium -dense to dense. (non -plastic) Test boring completed at 41.5 feet on 11 /15/90. Groundwater encountered at 16.5 feet during drilling. G EOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. TEST BORING LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EJobDate: Logged by: Plate: DEC 1990 BRH 6 oo` .0 BORING 2 4 CP �� �\� Q� USCS Description SM Dark brown silty SAND with organics, fine, grained, very moist . loose. 11 1 10 Brown SAND with some silt, silty lenses, fine to medium grained, 5 . SP very moist, loose to medium -dense. (occasional gravel) SM 26 2 13 10 .S� Blue -gray, silty SAND, silt lenses, fine grained, wet, medium -dense. 26 3 21 15 .SM. ML Blue -gray, silty SAND with interbedded, fractured silt lenses, 29 4 25 fine grained, wet, medium -dense, non -plastic. 20 Blue -gray silty SAND, occasional silt lenses, fine grained, wet WSW medium -dense. 26 5 19 25 Blue -gray. silty SAND, interbedded silt lenses, fine grained, wet, 23 6 39 medium -dense to dense. 30 sM 33 7 51 35 --- 8 25 40 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC TEST BORING LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 BRH . 7 • �5`�������`dl jod BORING 2 Zoo �e 10 90` USCS 45 9 53 50 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS,INC. Continued >cripNon Test boring completed at 46.5 feet on 11/15/90. Groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet during drilling. TEST BORING LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate. 90393 DEC 1990 BRH 8 �������������������'a.����� e������o�����w������������� • Dennis K Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer March 29, 2001 RECEIVED Michel Construction, Inc. DEC 12 2002 7907 212th St. S.W., #102 PERMIT COUNTER Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations Proposed Three New Single Family Residences 741h 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 74thh 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 FILE SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442 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 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, I 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. 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 74th PI. 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 Fillfor 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, 10 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 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-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on 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 backfill 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 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, I 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 with hand -operated equipment. Michel Construction, 110 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 (H:V). 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. 41 Michel Construction, 1 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, 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 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 _in 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, In1b 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 "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 Ind 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 74�h 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, In1 March 29, 2001 Page 10 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. exPMs 12123/ _r_ DMB:abj Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer TOM & LINDA HILLMAN 11410 NE 124th St. PMB 595 Kirkland WA 98034-4305 (425) 825-7552 June 4, 2003 Jeannine Graf, Building Official City of Edmonds 121 5"' Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Hillman/Michel Shared Driveway, Plan Check No. 02-565 iU°J - 4 . BUILDING DEPT. Dear Ms. Graf, Attached please find your letter of April 25, 2003 regarding grading issues for our shared driveway, signed by Rob Michel and myself. The language regarding excavation and drainage installation during the dryer season has been stricken, as it was not part of the discussion during our meeting on April 22"d We agree that construction during the dryer season,is preferable, and it is our intent to complete excavation and drainage installation before the end of September if our building permit is issued soon enough to allow this. Sincerely,' uto MICROFILM j,...��,.,�•�•-�-�„'�.` CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121j5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Ih c 1 g9p Planning • Building • Engineering CF"9"'® April 25, 2003 Linda Hillman BUILDING DEPT, 11410 NE 124"' Street PMB 595 Kirkland, WA 98034-4305 RE: Hillman/Michel Shared Driveway/Rockery/Retaining Wall, Plan Check # 02-565 Dear Ms. Hillman: Please review the following with Mr. Michel and indicate both your approvals by signing below. Please return to Marie Harrison by April 30, 2003. • The entire shared access driveway, Irockery and retaining wall are now part of the Hillman's permit application (02-565). This includes the portion on lot 33, as well as the portion on lot 34 (owned by Michel Construction) that occurs within the recorded access easement. • The issuance of the Hillman project (02-565) no longer relies on a separate grading permit for lot 34. Exeavation aliFl dr-Ai4qAO'e ifistallatiefl j- d to the dryer seasorr— t4�j/ The Hillman's submitted corrections for their building application April 14, 2003. Meadowdale second review target date is 30 working days. The second review should be complete on or around May 26, 2003. Should the review be completed sooner, you will be notified promptly. • Mr. Michel's SEPA determination'and grading permit application will remain active until a new complete single family residential permit application is submitted for lot 34. It is our understanding that the new single family residential permit application will be submitted in the next three or four weeks. • In terms of SEPA review, the grading quantities are lot specific, with grading for each portion of the shared driveway attributed to the lot on which it occurs- The Hillman SEPA determination v.411 not need ;to be revised to include any amount of grayling on Mr. Michel's property. h �J Linda Hillman Sincerely, JeannineGraf Building Official Cc: Rob Michel, Donna Breske r ,�C •. r Rob Michel Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan Janan Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. May 23, 2003 - Project No. KE03008A� { = y �7- I City of Edmonds Community Services Department ' 121 5`h Avenue North STREET FILE Edmonds Washington 98020 Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf Subject: Hillman Residence Addendum Geotechnical- Review Lots 33 and 34 74 h Place West Edmonds, Washington References: Additional Geotechnical Investigation Hillman Residence.- Lots 33 and 34, 74' Place West Edmonds, Washington Dennis,M. Bruce, P.E., April 4, 2003 Hillman Residence Geotechnical Review Lots 33 and 34, 74`' Place West Edmonds, Washington Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., February 4, 2003 Dear Ms. Graf: As requested, Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed an addendum review of the above -referenced additional geotechnical investigation provided by Dennis M. Bruce', P.E. The request for --additional information was presented in our February 4, 2003 'geotechnical review letter for the subject Hillman residence. Review Summary In AESI's February 4, 2003 review, we recommended that; additional geotechnical exploration at the site should be completed due to concerns regarding historic landslide activity. The exploration was to include a series of deep borings and some shallow borings or hand excavations across the lower. and upper portions of the lot, respectively. If the borings indicated evidence_ of landsliding, recommendations to. mitigate stability concerns were necessary. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5424 Additional Geotechnical Investigation and Conclusions by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. The supplemental geotechnical information presented by Mr. Bruce is based upon the excerpted logs of the two deep test borings and three test pits completed within Lot 34 by Geotech Consultants in December of 1990. Additionally, five hand -dug test pits were completed on the slope by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Based on the borings and test pits information, as well as a survey of the performance of surrounding properties, Mr. Bruce has concluded the following regarding soil bearing and site landslide risk: "An examination of the bore hole data verifies .very dense subgrade strata consisting of silty sand. Shallow conditions (less -than 15 feet) verify blow counts greater'than ten blows per foot. The findings are consistent with this engineer's test pits discussed in the March 29, 2001 report (revised April 4, 2003). " Mr.. Bruce, concludes in the summary portion of the revised report the following: "The Hillman property has been verified to be geotechnically 'stable. Test pits, deep borings and recent slope face investigations have verified stable geotechnical conditions. Mr. Bruce continues to recommend the use of conventional. spread footing foundations, and does not think a slope debris flow containment wall is geotechnically necessary. Drainage improvements are recommended. AESI Review Findings To assess Mr. Bruce's conclusions, AES1 made a review our files containing information relevant to the project area, obtained a copy of the .above -mentioned Geotech Consultants report, and have learned the following: • The Geotech Consultants report determined that "the lot is underlain by up to 25 feet of loose to medium -dense sands and soft to stiff silts overlying the medium -dense to dense, silty sand bearing soil. There is also an intermittent heavily fractured zone of silt from 9 to about 20 feet below existing grades ". • Test pit logs within the Geotech Consultants report indicate that the upper 15 feet of site soils consist of interbedded moist to wet, loose to medium dense, silty sand, and wet, soft to medium stiff, plastic sandy silt with some intermixed lenses of peat. Test pit 2 encountered a buried log at a depth of 7 feet below the ground surface, and extensive tree debris was encountered to a depth of at least 12 feet, which was the termination depth due to caving. • The Geotech Consultants report concludes that: "While it is our opinion that it is feasible to construct a single-family house on this. site, it will be difficult from a geotechnical standpoint. The structure will have to utilize heavily -reinforced, deep foundations which extend through the fractured silt layer.and surficial looser soils. We recommend that minimum sixteen -inch -diameter piers be utilized to provide bearing for the residence. Lateral pressures may be resisted by battered piers. The final grades 2 for the lot should be near existing grades, and only minor amounts of filling and or - cutting should be planned. • The Geotech Consultants report concludes that: "The Meadowdale area has been identified as an old landslide area. There is some risk of constructing a house in this area. However, it is our opinion that this lot, if developed in accordance with our recommendations, will result in a structure that is as stable as. any in the neighborhood. " • The Meadowdale area consists of a large, ancient, landslide complex that has been well documented in _ the geologic literature and by the City of Edmonds.. Review of stereo pair aerial photographs (taken in 1997) shows that the steep slope along the back of the lot represents a small section of a longer, arcuate -shaped, landslide scarp which defines the majority of the Meadowdale landslide area. Large-scale movement has not been observed in recent times, and although landslides, are known to occur, the area is slowly being developed with caution and under close scrutiny by the City. It is ,our opinion . that the geometry of the property 'is the result of previous. landslides occurring as the large, global, deep-seated movement noted above, and as small debris flows on' the face of the steep slope. • The GeoEngineers, Landslide Hazard Map (1984), indicates that the subject site is located within a section of the Meadowdale landslide hazard complex and contains four landslide hazard probability zones: 1. Upper steep_ slope - 2CO2, 31302 Hazards from encroaching landslide materials and hazards from ground failure, within material that has not ,previously failed, debris avalanches and debris slides, 2' percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year' period. 2. Toe steep slope - 2CO2, 4A 10 Hazards from encroaching landslide materials and hazards from ground failure in previously failed material, debris avalanches and slumps, 2 to 10 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year period. 3. Gently sloping lower portion lot - 4A 10, 4A30 Hazards from ground failure in previously failed material, slumps, 10 to 30 percent probability of occurrence during a 25-year .period. •. In the winter of 2000, a debris flow demolished a carport for the residence located in the neighborhood, at the north end of 75`' Place West.' AESI Conclusions As discussed in our initial review letter and based on the supplemental information discussed above, it is AESI's opinion that. the most critical geotechnical issues associated with development of the site consists of deep-seated landslide hazard risk and slope debris flow risk 3 mitigation, foundation support, and site grading sand drainage. Our conclusions regarding each issue are presented below. Landslide Hazards The general landslide hazard risk at the site has been defined by the GeoEngineers Landslide, Hazard Map as ranging between 2 to .30 percent. The Geotech Consultants deep borings and test pits provide site -specific information that fractured silt zones were encountered at depths of 9 to 20 feet, indicating 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 indications of current deep-seated landsliding are present. Given these site conditions, change in. the current landslide hazard risk designation does not appear to be justified. 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 reachonto the proposed building site. The slope tests pits dug by Dennis M. Bruce,. P.E. encountered dense sands and gravels, indicating that the slope colluvium soil layer is less than 3 feet thick, if these soils are. undisturbed. The slope colluvium soil layer may be thicker upslope of test pits. To mitigate, the potential for deep-seated landsliding, we propose the use of deep foundations These 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 15 feet of unconsolidated debris deposits. To mitigate the potential for debris flow landsliding, the ground level foundation walls should be extended a minimum of 4 feet above the outside grade along the eastern section of the proposed residence, or some type of debris flow containment wall should be constructed upslope of the proposed residence site. Foundation Support The upper 15 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 discussed above should be utilized. Site Grading and Drainage Improvements Give the variable consistency and loose. to medium dense, unconsolidated condition of the surficial site soils, significant excavation slopes are likely to be unstable. Therefore, the final grades for the lot should be near existing grades, and only minor amounts of filling and, or cutting should be planned. Permanent excavation slopes and rockery walls should be limited to a height of 4 feet, unless an engineered retaining wall is used. Site fills should be avoided El s where possible, and limited to less than 2 feet in depth to minimize inducing, settlement within the unconsolidated soils. Site drainageimprovement should consist of controlling the existing ground water seepage. flowing from the base of the slope. The slope drain should be completed prior to the general project construction to enhance site stability. Roof downspout runoff tightlines and footing drains should also be included - in the residence design to promote drainage around the structure. 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 Hillman residence, the requirements of Chapter, 19.05 of the ECDC should .be satisfied. The revised construction plans should be reviewed by this office .to ensure that these conditions have been met. 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 0 C1 R�� vw �'/Z31Z=3 �IDNALti� EXPIRES 27 2oo S- G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer GAM/ld KE03008AZ Projecs\2003008\KE\WP. W'K 5 Hpr 23 2UU3 4: 52PM HP LHSERJL 1 J33U 425-ii25-"/552 p. 1 TOM & LINDA HILLMAN 11410 NE 124t" St. PMB 595 Kirkland WA 98034-4305 (425) 825-7552 April 23, 2003 Jeanine Graf, Building Official City of Edmonds 121 5" Ave. North Edmonds, WA 98020 Re; Hillman/Michel Shared Driveway, Plan Check No. 02-565 Dear Ms. Graf, Thank you for meeting with me yesterday. !It was helpful to have you and Ms. Taylor and Ms. Harrison all there at once to review our situation. It is my understanding that we decided the following things: • The entire access driveway and its retaining wall are now part of our permit application (02- 565). This includes the portion on lot 33, as well as the portion on lot 34 (owned by Michel Construction) that occurs within the recorded access easements. • We are on target to have our recheck completed and our building permit issued on or about May 19t, assuming that the plan check items have been adequately addressed by our architect and engineers. The issuance of our building permit no longer relies on a separate grading permit for lot 34 being obtained by Mr. Michel. • The grading quantities on the SEPA ieperts remain lot -specific, with grading for each portion of the shared driveway attributed to the lot on which it occurs. Our SEPA does not require amendment to include additional grading in the easement areas on Mr. Michel's lot, even though the whole driveway is now part of our permit. Mr. Michel's SEPA and grading permit application will remain active and be transferred to his building permit application upon its submittal. Please let us know if your understanding differs from what I have described. Unless we hear otherwise from you within the week, we will rely on the accuracy of this conversation record and proceed accordingly. Thank you again for your time and effort on this challenging project. Sincerely, cc: Rob Michel, Donna Breske rr 4 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer City of Edmonds Ccmmunity Services Department 121 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 April 4, 2003 i � I T --�; RECEIVED APR 1 12003 J Subject: Additional Geotechnical Investigation PERMIT COUNTER Hillman Residence - Lots �33' and 34 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington This engineering report presents the results of additional geotechnical invesfivations for the Hillman property (Lots 33 and 34), approximate address 15915 - 74th Place; West, Edmonds, Washington. This additional geotechnical investigation was. required due to City of Edmonds comments from Mr. Dave Gebbert, P.E., dated February 28; 2003. REFERENCES: • Geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendations by D. Bruce, P.E., dated March 29, 2001, revised April 4, 2003. • Geotechnical criteria / buffer reduction report by D. Bruce, P.E., dated June 28, 2002. • r;eotechnical declaration and sti tement of risk by D. Bruce, P.E., dated December 9, 2002, revised April 4, 2003. • Drainage report by Donna Bresk'e, P.E., dated October 30, 2002. • Hillman residence geotechnical review by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc., dated February 4, 2003. ADDITIONAL INVESTIGATION A review of A.E.S., Inc., February 4, 2003 letter, as well as discussions by this engineer with G. Aaron McMichael, P.E., P.E.G., indicated concerns regarding possible historic landslide activity and desire for additional subsurface information. Eastern Slope (Pits 1 through 3): A series of shallow test holes were dug on March 4, 2003 along the eastern slope of the Hillman property (see test hole log). A total of five (5) test holes were dug SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page two to depths of four and one-half feet (4-1/2') of the sloped portion of the property (see photographs dated March 4, 2003, by D. Bruce, P.E.). The three southerly test holes encountered similar subgrade conditions: Dense sands with gravels (see photographs of excavated material). No water was encountered in any of these three southerly test holes. Test hole walls remained vertical and stable,- with no sloughing or caving. This engineer evaluated the holes six hours after excavation. Northern Pit No. 5 (adjacent City of Edmonds surface water drainage systeml This northern pit also encountered dense sands with gravels. No sloughing or caving of the hole occurred. Norwater was encountered in the test hole (six hours after excavation). Pit No. 4: Pit No. 4 encountered dense sands with gravels (similar to Pits 1, 2, 3 and 5.) Pit No. 4 remained stable, with no sloughing or caving. A very slight seepage trickle was observed at the base of Pit No. 4, approximately six hours after excavation. The water level was immeasurable in the bottom of the hole. Mere trace of water. See photos. Additionally, this engineer conducted an extensive visual evaluation of mature - es. on the eastern. slope face (see photos). tos). No significant leaning or evidence of slope face movement was observed. Note: This engineer did observe jone tree on the flatter portion of "the property that had a modest down slope lean. This engineer also observed a nearby tree that had a modest up slope lean. It is most likely that these observed unique leans are due to normal sunlight -seeking growth. Additional examination of the eastern slope verified dense subgrade soils and dense vegetation growth. DEEP BORINGS: This engineer has reviewed two deep soil test borings performed by Geotech Consultants in December of 1990, on which is now the Hillman property (see attached four bore hole logs). City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page three An examination of the bore hole (data verifies very dense subgrade strata consisting of silty sand. Shallow conditions (less than fifteen feet) verify blow counts greater than ten blows per foot. The findings of these 1990 bore holes are consistent with this engineer's test pits discussed in the March 29, 2001 report (revised April 4, 2003.) REGIONAL GEOTECHNICAL EVALUATION / OBSERVATIONS: .This engineer conducted additional evaluations of nearby residences (to the Hillman property). A brick residence exists down slope and slightly north of the Hillman property (see photo of brick house with reddish -brown roof). Brick structures are highly reflective of any ground movement or subsurface instabilities. This house revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress: No cracking, no foundation settlement, no dislocation of exterior brick work. The location of this brick house is directly below a regional "gully" considerably north of the Hillman property (see regional site plan). Visual observation of the many existing (for numerous years) homes directly west of the Hillman property also verified no evidence of any geotechnical distress: No foundation cracking, no settlements,. no shifting or movement of sloping driveways. .. 1,. An existing residence lies approximately two hundred feet (200') feet to the zQLAh...of...the Hill►nala.property.- This, residence is located at the. rase of. a significantly steeper slope than exists east of the Hillman property. No evidence of any slippage, sliding or adverse impacts to the residence was observed. DISCUSSION: This engineer is extremely familiar with regional soil conditions, having done extensive investigation and on -site inspections fora recent home in the Lorian Woods Development (approximately 800' to the south). Further, this engineer is currently) undertaking investigations for a rebuilding of a Meadowdale Road house (destroyed by fire two years ago). Another new house (within the past two years) was constructed on a waterfront lot approximately 900' southwesterly of the Hillman property. L� City of Edmonds Hillman Residence Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page four In all regional cases, the most important issue for geotechnical stability is proper drainage control. The Hillman property is underlain by dense, stable subgrade soils to be verified by on -site geotechnical inspections during construction. City of Edmonds drain (between Lots 32 and 33) effectively collects and controls surface water in the drain's vicinity. The Hillman property will control fits water in accordance with the drainage design by Donna Rreske, P.E. This engineer observes no evidence of any improper or uncontrolled surface water. discharge from the up slope properties to the east. The dense, mature vegetation on the slope face further evidences slope stability. By constructing a reinforced concrete foundation and stem wall, the Hillman residence will improve overall slope stability. Further, the code -required footing drains will reduce and control ground water seepage pressures. If desired, although not geotechnically necessary, a modest erosional stabilization wall could be constructed at or near the toe of the eastern slope. Such "debris containment walls" normally cons isting.of-stacked ecology -blocks or equivalent, provide additional assurance that surficial erosional flow does not impact the residence. Given the dense vegetation growth on the slope face, this engineer believes that such a debris containment wall is not necessary. SUMMARY: • The Hillman property has been verified to be geotechnically stable. Test pits, deep borings and recent slope face investigations have verified stable geotechnical conditions. • The City of Edmonds surface wafer drainage system functions properly. • The proposed Hillman residence will comply with the approved drainage plan. • On -site geotechnical inspections �by a qualified, experience geotechnical engineer will verify proper footing placement and subgrade conditions. City of Edmonds Hillman Residence - Lots 33 and 34, 74th Place West April 4, 2003 Page five • The installation of a reinforced concrete foundation and stem wall will improve overall property integrity. The 1979 landslide hazards investigation report by Roger Lowe Associates provided a good base map for investigation and geotechnical recommendations. The 1979 report identified many areas as having a 90% likelihood of failure and landslide. The recommendations were modified in 1985 by GeoEngineers, where evidently many 90% likely zones were reduced to 30% likely slide zones. This engineer respects the creddntials and conclusions of Roger Lowe and GeoEngineers, but points out the subjective nature of trying to predict landslides. If there are any questions, do note hesitate to call. 3 s 1202Y_ a ba Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineers 3M — - —� _ _ - = -- I it (3) 68 �� 1 s O; qq , c MH I I II ' M ' 10 0 �- - - 98 - _ A A 8 11 APLE M A 10 . _ II j�DI 104--102 -- ALDER 10 LD 4A}� E II _ LOE -� _ 106 _ 0 1 1 3- \ 911 AL R" A, BE80 _ 6 -AL -_ 108 - A 14 - AL Ep41 - -ER 20 III L qq A 4" EkL 12)-CTNWOOD 4 LD� R214 L R II 1 AL E S A I- 2 Ln 10 Y$D R 14 I) 11 R 4 LO I 11 i I SA ALDER ib ER SH AL fit ID R ER 161 II fff777 % LDE 8 y 116 / ALDER 14 I 0 ALDER 14 A ER 14 1 . AL ERA 6 ER 2 I 1 / A DER 32 � I ALDER 4 I N ' DE, 1 R I ALDER 6 iA _ LD •;3 ER 10- \, ALOER,.B \ \ IA ALDER LD _R 8 A t31 all 1� ALDER • �,�\L - • Tw n 1 .•I 122 -_ 3 IToe NI 14 ^ 242 lea /�-,_� I C - 126 2 p ' 126 o \. 14a 240 3e 3� i t21 MA 52 16 \6 \ 62 ` \ \ �� - 1 48 5- l s _ 50 - V�\ate.. • � � \\ l Q � h2 0 _ - 1 _- 162 - 164 - f- j B-� �TP-3 i i 1 LEGEND` QTP-1. APPROXIMATE' ~ TEST PIT LOCATION I 8-1"APPROXIMATE BORING' LOCATION 0 DIRT ACCgSS' ROAD' a W J a ' � C 3 0 c a W 75TH PLACE WEST' GEOTECH CONSULTANTS . � II SITE EXPLORATION PLAN MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS,, WASHINGTON Job No. Dole Pfo/I 90391 DEC 1990 N.T.S, 2 TEST PIT 1 rl oeQ �o�y o��e 0 G USCS 10 15 uavwu, ♦c,y WILY oruvL wjui organics, very moist, loose i SM Tan, silty SAND, few organics, fine grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense. Gray, slightly silty SAND, few organics, fine grained, slightly moist, loose to medium -dense. SP I.S.M. Gray, mottled SILT with some intermixed sand, fractured, medium ML plastic, wet, soft to medium stiff. Becomes blue -gray, highly fractured. SM Blue -gray, silty�SAND, fine grained, very wet, medium -dense. i Test pit terminated at 15 feet below existing grade on 9/10/90. Slight groundwater seepage encountered at 14 1/2 feet during excavation. Slight caving above 4 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS.. INC. TEST PIT LOGS MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No: Date: Logged by --.Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 DRW 3 ■ � f ll TEST PIT 2 0 G USCS Description sM Mottled silty, SAND with organics, fine to coarse grained, wet, loose. E: 10 15 Blue -gray SILT with intermixed lenses of peat, some small sand lenses, IMLI plastic, wet,lsoft. _ (Log encountered) Gray, silty SAND, some tree debris, fine to medium -grained, T'SM' very wet, loose to medium -dense. Extensive tree debris encountered. Test pit terminated at 12 feet below existing grade on 9/10/90. Slight groundwater seepage encountered below 7 1/2 feet during excavation. Caving below 7 1/2 feet. C �._ GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST PIT LOGS MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON No: Date. Logged by: Plate: 90393 1 DEC 1990 1 DRW 1 4 1 TEST PIT 3 USCS 0 Descri do Topsoil 5 10 15 L- Tan, silty- SAND, medium grained, loose, wet Blue -gray sandy SILT with some intermixed peat, nonplastic, wet, loose. SM Blue -gray silty SAND with some intermixed peat. I ML111 Blue -gray, slightly sandy SILT, low to medium plasticity, MN wet, soft to medium stiff. Blue -gray, silty SAND, medium grained, verywet, loose to medium -dense. Test pit terminated at 15 feet below existing grade on 0/10/90. Groundwater seepage encountered at 7 1/2 feet during excavation. Some caving at 7 1 /2 feet. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. i TEST PIT LOGS MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON No: Date: Logged:by Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 DRW: 5 E 10 15 20 25 KZII 35 401 e d� le o�yr� c�g�` FQ\g 4y �o A Go 4 0 et Q lLSrIS I I BORING 1 10 1 9 SM Dark brown, silty SAND with organics, fine-grained, wet, loose. sM' Gray to blue -gray silty SAND, trace gravel, fine grained, wet, 36 2 4 very loose to loose. Blue -gray sandy SILT, low plasticity, wet, medium stiff to very 23 3 10 stiff. ML - (occasional intermixed sand lenses) 26 4 22 - = Blue -gray silty SAND, silt lenses, fine grained, wet, loose to mediun 43 5 12 dense.; SMR 23 6 14 IS 7 31 Blue -gray silty SAND with some gravel, silt lenses, fine grained, we medium -dense to dense. 17 8 35. .SM. (non -plastic) - 27 9 23 I t esrboring completed at 41.5 feet on l 1 /15/90. Groundi ater encountered at 16.5 feet during drilling. { TEST BORING LOG GEOTECH MEADOWDALE BEACH CONSULTANTS,INC. SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate. 90393 DEC 1990 $RH 6 z E 10 15 20 25 30 351' 40 ' l a °`y�� ������ �Q�� e F°d� e o° 4o 'eze, BORING 2 sm.14 Dark brown silty SAND with organics, fine, grained, very moist . loose. 11 1 10 Brown SAND with some silt, silty lenses, fine to medium grained, = SP .: very moist, loose to medium -dense. (occasional gravel) SM 26 2 13 _ Blue -gray, silty SAND, silt lenses, fine grained, wet, medium -dense _ SM _ 26 3 21 - - SM ML : Blue -gray, silty SAND with interbedded, fractured silt lenses, _ 29 4 25 fine grained, wet, medium -dense, non -plastic. Blue -gray silty SAND, occasional silt lenses, fine grained, wet _ _ SM : medium -dense. _ 26 5 19 Blue -gray silty SAND, interbedded silt lenses, fine grained, wet, . 23 6 39 medium�i dense to dense. SM 33 7 51 --- 8 25 GEOTECH CONSULTAN75,INC. I TEST BORING LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASHINGTON EJobNo: Date: Logged by: Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 BRH . 7 00, BORING USCs 40 Contir' 45 ___ 9 53 . so Desciipti, Test boring completed at 46.5 feet on 11/15/90. Groundwater encountered at 10.5 feet during drilling. GEOTECH C0N5U1.TANT5,INC. i TEST BORING LOG MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT EDMONDS, WASH INGTON Job No: I Date: Logged by: Plate: 90393 DEC 1990 BRH 8 Emm ■mm ■�M■ mmmmm��� ■����MM■���� ■�M� m ■mom CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.oi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT j� c 1$9p Planning • Building • Engineering February 28, 2003 Ms. Linda Hillman 11410 NE 124" St, PMB595 Kirkland, WA 98034, RE: Single Family Residence at 15915 74th Place West, Plan Check #02-565 Dear Ms. Hillman: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The City has reviewed the Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations dated March 29, 2001 and Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk dated December 9, 2002 prepared by Mr. Dennis Bruce. This letter provides comments on the above documents in addition to the comments provided by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. in their letter dated February 4, 2003. In the referenced documents, Mr. Bruce makes comments indicating a possible misunderstanding on his part regarding the City's stormwater system in the vicinity of your property and the City's responsibilities regarding site drainage of your property and nearby/abutting private properties. In his March 29, 2001, letter, Mr. Bruce states "...the City of Edmonds has installed storm water interceptor drains and discharge lines along the property line boundary between Lots 33 and 32...". He further states that his "...investigations have revealed some deferred maintenance regarding proper tight line connections of the City of Edmonds catch basins...", that he considers it ";..essential that the City of Edmonds inspect and maintain these drainage lines to prevent unwarranted discharge onto Lots 32 and 33.", and that the "...catch basins and drain lines require proper maintenance to prevent future, unacceptable erosional degradation." He goes on the state that "...the City of Edmonds drainage interceptor catch basin and tight line between Lot 33 and Lot 32 requires maintenance and probable improvements." In Mr. Bruce's December 9, 2002 letter, he recommends that "...the City of Edmonds perform its due diligence regarding up -slope properties and proper drainage management. In other words, slope stability depends on up -slope neighbors not "dumping" storm water onto the slope face itself." Incorporated August 11, 1890 • %ictor rift, - Holcinan .Tanan We must call your attention to the fact that the City's drain line along the property line boundary between lots 32 and 33 is a tight line for collection and conveyance of surface water directed to this line and stormwater systems connected to it. It is not intended or designed to intercept or collect all ground water or surface water from abutting properties nor to deal with groundwater or surface water on private properties, other than to provide a conveyance system to which private drainage systems can, with City approval, connect. Specifically, it is not designed or intended to manage the drainage on up -slope private properties or to prevent surface water or ground water from flowing from up -slope properties onto down -slope properties. New developments are responsible to deal with surface water and ground water on their properties and connect into the City's tight line storm system. The design for lots 32, 33, and 34 must not rely on the City's system for.collecting surface water or ground water on your properties other than as a system to convey water after it has been collected from your property. Furthermore, your design must not rely on the City's system for assuring lot stability of your private property, or for intercepting ground water or surface water flow from abutting properties. The City is not the guarantor of the hillside stability or site stability in this active landslide hazard area. Any extensions of the current system are at the sole discretion of the City Council. Finally, please be aware that the City's Public Works Department inspects the City's drainage line on a regular basis and performs maintenance as necessary to insure the system is functioning correctly. Mr. Bruce's statement that the City's drain line `requires maintenance and probable improvements" is not clear or specific. If Mr. Bruce believes the existing system is in need of improvements, please provide further details. Please instruct your geotechnical engineer to revise the Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations report and the Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk accordingly. Please note that the requested drainage -related revisions must be completed in addition to addressing the site stability issues raised in the February 4, 2003 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. letter. . Sincerely DAVID K. GEBERT, PE City Engineer Cc: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Dennis M. Bruce, PE Rob Michel, Michel Construction, Inc. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official i. _ Q • the iS9'0 V CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwzi.edmonds.wa.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering February 28, 2003 Ms. Linda Hillman 11410 NE 1241h St, PMB595 Kirkland, WA 98034 RE: Single Family Residence at 15915 741h Place West, Plan Check #02-565 Dear Ms. Hillman: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR The City has reviewed the Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations dated March 29, 2001 and Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk dated December 9, 2002 prepared by Mr. Dennis Bruce. This letter provides comments on the above documents in addition to the comments provided by Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. in their letter dated February 4, 2003. In the referenced documents, Mr. Bruce makes comments indicating a possible misunderstanding on his part regarding the City's stormwater system in the vicinity of your property and the City's responsibilities regarding site drainage'of your property and nearby/abutting private properties. In his March 29, 2001, letter, Mr. Bruce states "...the City of Edmonds has installed storm water interceptor drains and discharge lines along the property line boundary between Lots 33 and 32...". He further states that his "...investigations have revealed some deferred maintenance regarding proper tight line connections of the City of Edmonds catch basins...", that he considers it "...essential that the City of Edmonds inspect and maintain these drainage lines to prevent unwarranted discharge onto Lots 32 and 33.", and that the "...catch basins and drain lines require proper maintenance to prevent future, unacceptable erosional degradation." He goes on the state that "...the City of Edmonds drainage interceptor catch basin and tight line between Lot 33 and Lot 32 requires maintenance and probable improvements." In Mr. Bruce's December 9, 2002 letter, he recommends that "...the City of Edmonds perform its due diligence regarding up -slope properties and proper drainage management. In other words, slope stability depends on up -slope neighbors not "dumping" storm water onto the slope face itself." Incorporated August 11, 1890 • We must call your attention to the fact that the City's drain line along the property line boundary between lots 32 and 33 is a tight line for collection and conveyance of surface water directed to this line and stormwater systems connected to it. It is not intended or designed to intercept or collect all ground water or surface water from abutting properties nor to deal with groundwater or surface water on private properties, other than to provide a conveyance system to which private drainage systems can, with City approval, connect. Specifically, it is not designed or intended to manage the drainage on up -slope private properties or to prevent surface water or ground water from flowing from up -slope properties onto down -slope properties. New developments are responsible to deal with surface water and ground water on their properties and connect into the City's tight line storm system. The design for lots 32, 33, and 34 must not rely on the City's system for collecting surface water or ground water on your properties other than as a system to convey water after it has been collected from your property. Furthermore, your design must not rely on the City's system for assuring lot stability of your private property, or for intercepting ground water or surface water flow from abutting properties. The City is not the guarantor of the hillside stability or site stability in this active landslide hazard area. Any extensions of the current system are at the sole discretion of the City Council. Finally, please be aware that the City's Public Works Department inspects the City's drainage line on a regular basis and performs maintenance as necessary to insure the system is functioning correctly. Mr. Bruce's statement that the City's drain line "requires maintenance and probable improvements" is not clear or specific. If Mr. Bruce believes the existing system is in need of improvements, please provide further details. Please instruct your geotechnical engineer to revise the Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations report and the Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk accordingly. Please note that the requested drainage -related revisions must be completed in addition to addressing the site stability issues raised in the February 4, 2003 Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. letter. Sincerely DAVID K. GEBERT, PE City Engineer Cc: Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. Dennis M. Bruce, PE Rob Michel, Michel Construction, Inc. Noel Miller, Public Works Director Jeannine Graf, Building Official Associated Earth Sciences, In,c. . RECEIVE® F E B - 6 2003 - BUILDING DEPT. February 4, 2003 Project No. KE03008A City of Edmonds Community- Services Department 121 5' Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 _ = Attention: Ms. Jeannine Graf l Subject: Hillman Residence Geotechnical Review Lots 33-and-34 74' Place West , Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. 'Graf:- As requested,' Associated Earth .Sciences, Inc. (AESI) has completed a preliminary geotechnical .review for the above -referenced project. This review was authorized by Jeannine L. Graf with the City of Edmonds Development Services Department in Task Order No. 5 dated December 13, 2002. This review. has been Performed pursuant to Section 19.05.060 of the Edmonds Community Development Code-(ECDC),. This letter is based -on our visit to the site on January 23, 2003 and our review) of the following documents provided by the City, of Edmonds.: 1. "Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendations;, Proposed Three New 'Single -Family Residences 74`� Pl. V. -North of Meadowdale Road," ..dated March 29, 2001 and p b . Dennis M. Bruce E.E. . prepared .Y _ 2. `.`Geotechnical . Criteria/Buffer- 'Reduction, 'Proposed 'New Single -Family _ Residence 15915.. 74" Pl'. W., Edmonds, Washington," dated *June, 28, 2002 and prepared by Dennis K Bruce, P.E. 3. "Geotechnical Declaration and. Statement of Risk, Proposed New'.gingle-Family 'Residence, 15915 - 74`h Place west, .Edmonds, Washington,"' dated December - 9, 2002 and prepared by Dennis M!'Bruce, P.E. 911 Fifth Avenue, Suite 100 • Kirkland, WA 98033 • Phone 425 827-7701 • Fax 425 827-5424 4. "Drainage Report for Tom_ and Lin Hillman," dated October 30, 2002 and prepared by. Donna L. Breske; P.E. 5. "City, of Edmonds Landslide Hazards Map Figure 1, by Geo Engineers, Inc.,. 1985 based on "Landslide Hazards Investigation, Meadowdale Area, Edmonds, Washington" by Roger Lowe Associates., Inc.' October 16, 1979. i The subject lots are located east of 74' Place .West, which extends north. of North Meadowdale - Road in Edmonds, Washington, The two lots are rectangular in shape; with each lot covering an. area with approximate dimensions of 1, 0 feet wide by 230 feet deep. The lots are presently covered with both immature and mature Alder trees and brush vegetation. Many of the trees exhibited a pronounced westward lean and, bow shaped trunks. The, lots. are bordered by 'similar undeveloped property to the south (towards North. Meadowdale Road), 74`'' Place West on the west, residential property on the north, and a steep slope (50 to. 70 percent inclination,` locally steeper) on the east. From the steep stope.forming the'- eastern margin of the lots, the ground surface slopes gently. downward to the west and south forming a wide bench. - The western side of the -bench is bordered by a short slope inclined at approximately 50 percent; which extends downward to a newly paved extension of 74`' Place West. Ground water.'seepage was noted flowing from the base 'of, the steep 'slope within the - northeastern section .of Lot 33., A series of storm water catch basins were noted within .this area, which appear to have been constructed to provide long-term drainage control. The lots are located within' the boundaries', of the Meadowdale landslide complex as mapped by Roger Lowe and Associates (1979) -and. GeoEngineers (1985), and thus are subject to The Meadowdale -Earth. Subsidence Landslide, Hazard criteria as defined by Chapter 19.05 of the ECDC: Based on • our. •review of the above -referenced. documents and upon our site visit, in our. . . opinion, the steep slope. and bench forming the majority of the Hillman lots has been created by a large landslide. The steep slope at the back of the lots appears to consist of the landslide headscarp. The leaning and bow -shaped tree trunks indicate that soil.creep is occurring across the eastern portion of the bench. Therefore,..it .is our opinion that the project geotechnical reports prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.• have not. addressed the minimum geotechnical requirements for sites .located within the Meadowdale landslide complex. Given the location of' the site, and the presence of landslide features, further geotechnical investigation and analysis of stability of the -site is required in accordance with the -City of Edmonds Ordinance No. 2661 and Chapter 19.05 of the ECDC. Please. refer to the minimum geotechnical report criteria guidelines. provided by the City. as ; an attachment to Chapter 19:05.. The purpose of further study would be to . demonstrate that proposed residential lots are stable and. suitable for residential construction, or require mitigation to address unstable conditions. 2 As stated above, our observations, indicate that the Hillman lots- have been formed by large- scale -landslide activity, -and thus likely contain a deep-seated landslide slip surface.. -The steep; slope forming, the east portion of the lots may also be: vulnerable to debris flow .landsliding., The shdllow test pits completed on the lots are not sufficient to determine 'whether a slip surface is present, or provide sufficient soil information necessary -to. evaluate site stability. Further; no soil exploration has been completed on the eastern slope, which would be necessary to determine colluvium thickness and appropriate setbacks from the toe of the slope. Therefore,we recommend that additional geotechnical_ exploration at the site be completed. ' This exploration should'include a series, of deep borings and piezometers completed -across ,the bench, and some shallow borings or hand excavations' on the -slope. If the borings indicate evidence of laridsliding, soil samples from the. borings should be tested to determine friction angle and shear strength- as appropriate. The information from the borings and piezometers . should be used to develop. a subsurface profile through the site from. east to west, including the geologic .units, and ground water conditions. Based upon the subsurface profile, a slope' stability analysis should be completed demonstrating that minimum acceptable factors of safety against slope instability within the. slope and ' bench, are available to support residentiaj - construction, in addition to addressing the other: requirements 'of Chapter 19.05 of ,the ECDC. The. addendum geotechnical report 'should! be reviewed by this office to evaluate the results of the study. We appreciate the opportunity to be of service . to you, on this project., Should you have any questions regarding .this letter or other, 9''eotechnical aspects of the project, please call us 'at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, . ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Kirkland, Washington en •./:: G. Aaron McMichael, P.E. , P.E.G. Senior Geotechnical Engineer GAM/da - KE03008A1 - Projec[s\200300MEMP - W2K MEMORANDUM Date: 2 January 2003 To: Kathleen Taylor, Associate Planner From: Lyle Chrisman, Engineering Program ManagerAe Subject: Retaining wall, wetland, slopes and. reasonable use exemption- at 15917 74"' PL W-Michel Construction (V-02-222/ V-02-225) The application has been reviewed for the above request and the following comments are provided for this application only. The justification the applicant outlined in item III of the critical areas checklist isn't totally accurate. The applicant could design a structure where the garage was lower, which would reduce the driveway slope and with a straight shared driveway, could construct a driveway to a grade of 20% or less. This would reduce the impervious surface area. However, in order to construct and maintain a driveway with a reasonable slope of 14% or less, for this and the property to the North, an engineered wall to the height shown on drawing would be acceptable. The applicant will be required to meet all City requirements for the development of the proposed wall and driveway in support of the construction of the proposed single family residence to the north at 15915 74`h PL W. In addition, all future requirements must -be met for the development of a single family residence at 15917 74`h PL W. All engineering design drawings must be done by a licensed professional engineer. With the proposed driveway above the City street, a guardrail will be required. City of Edmonds V Advrw\var\02-222michel.DOC ' CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering Inc.18°IO January 23, 2002 Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 — 212`h Street SW, # 102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Mr. Don Henderson 15825 — 75`h Place West Edmonds, WA 98,026 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR STREET FILE RE: Right of Way Permit #01-208 —Project on 74`h Place West Dear Mr. Michel and Mr. Henderson: This is to confirm the agreement reached on January 23, 2002 regarding the construction of the right-of-way improvements by Rob Michel, Michel Construction, Inc., on 741h Place West in Edmonds. It is agreed as follows: Mr: Michel a` reg es"to: • Relocate the paved surface of the new road to the eastern edge of the 741h Place West right-of-way, and relocate the associated utilities accordingly. • Relocate the hammerhead/driveway entrance to Lot A 20 feet to the south. • Remove those trees (but leave the stumps) on the northeast corner of Mr. Henderson's property, to be flagged for removal by Mr. Henderson on January 23, 2002. • Stabilize the site of tree removal within the right-of-way. Install grass for erosion control to. prevent slides. • Plant new landscaping of Mr.Henderson's reasonable choice to replace the screening effect for the hot tub formerly provided by the trees that are subject to removal. Replacement plants to be no taller than 6 feet in height at the time of planting. • Relocate Mr. Henderson's fence to a minimum of 2 feet to the west of the west edge of the new paved roadway thickened edge. Only that portion of the fence within 2 feet of the new asphalt pavement will be relocated. In no case will any part of the existing fence be relocated any further to the east than is presently existing. • Submit AutoCAD final as -built drawings to the City upon completion of the work. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sistar C;itu - Hekinan. Janan Mr. Henderson agrees to: • Not object to the removal of trees shown on the Michel Construction drawings to be in the City right-of-way and to be removed. • Grant permission to'Mr. Michel to remove those trees on the northeast corner of Mr. Henderson's property to be flagged by Mr. Henderson on January 23, 2002 for removal. • Release Mr.'Michel, Michel Construction, Inc., Briggs Construction, and the City from liability or responsibility in the event that any trees on Mr Henderson's property not flagged for removal and therefore not removed by Mr. Michel should die. • Not appeal the City's issuance of the subject right-of-way permit to Briggs Construction (contractor for Rob Michel, Michel Construction) for the improvements to 74`h Place West • Submit a properly completed application for a City encroachment permit for installing his privately owned fence in the City right -of way. The City agrees to: • Allow the slope of the portions of 'the hammerhead to the east of the east edge of the right-of-way to be a maximum slope of 12 percent. • Approve Mr. Henderson's, properly completed and submitted encroachment permit for locating his fence in the right-of-way.. • Not require Mr. Michel, Michel Construction, or Briggs Construction to resubmit revised, plans for City review prior to construction. The City will allow construction to proceed based upon "red lined"drawings reflecting the changes in this agreement, to be. followed by submission ofAutoCAD final as built drawings upon completion of the work. Sincerely, .DAVID-K: GEBERT, PE City Engineer Agreed: Agreed: Rob Michel Date o enderson D to r� TOM & LINDA HILLMAN 11410 NE i24 th St. P M B 595 Kirkland WA 98034-4305 (425).825-7552 December 2002 Jeannine Graf, Building Official City -of Edmonds 121 5th Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020 Regarding: owner Liability Landslide Acknowledgement Declaration Address: 15915 74th Place west, Edmonds Dear MS. Graf, we the owners of the above referenced property, hereby acknowledge that we understand and acceptlthe risk of developing in an area with potentially unstable soils and that we will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of -the site, or any prospective purchasers or residential lessees of structures or portions of a structure on the site, of the slide potential of the area. Attached please find our signed and notarized statement. Sincerely, RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER STATEMENT OF OWNER/APPLIICANT LIABILITY AND LANDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The accuracy of all permit submittal information is warranted by us as the applicant/owner. The City of Edmonds and its staff is relieved from any liability associated with reliance on such permit application.submittals; While our application may reference the reports of prior public consultants to the City, all conclusions shall be those of ours as the applicant/owner and our design professionals. We as the applicant/owner understand and accept the risk of developing in an area with potentially unstable soils, and we will advise, in writing, any prospective purchasers of the site, or any prospective lessees of structures on the site, of the slide potential of the area. (Reference ECDC 19.05.030 and 19.05.040C.) Dated this day, of b 2002. III 1 homas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillm n, Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998." STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I, J)2P)Q L Katbe — , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, do hereb certify that on this ) Z day of WPP'nber , 2002, JhombS � Linda 1 m ,n personally appeared before mel, to me known to be the trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998, of. described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this Z day of 2002. DEBRA L. KARBER Notary Public in and for the State olf NOTARY PUBLIC Washington, residing at Wn} pwoo- STATE OF WASHINGTON COMMISSION EXPIRES Page of APRIL 9, 2Q03 Dated this day of.. 2002. "Thomas W. Hillman and Linda B. Hillmanj Trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998." STATE OF WASHINGTON ss. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH I, L kWbe4-- , Notary Public in and for the State of Washington, do hereby certify that on this tZ day of U('eMk- x— , 2002, I AOM/m� Lihl-% i personally appeared before me, to me known to be the trustees for the Hillman Family Trust dated February 25, 1998, of described in and who executed the within instrument and acknowledged that they signed the same as their free and voluntary act and deed for the uses and purposes herein mentioned. GIVEN under my hand and official seal this ) Z day of OeC M6,eY, , 2002. Notary' Public in and for the Ste of Washington, DEBRA L. =BER residing at NOTARY PUBLIC STATE OF WASHINGTON Page -,� Of COMMISSION EXPIRES APRIL 9, 2003 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M:S.C. E., M.B.A. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer December 9, 2002 City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk Proposed New Single Family Residence 15915 - 74th Place West, Edmonds, Washington RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER This engineering letter presents a declaration as required by City of Edmonds Codes (ECDC 19.05.040(a)). REFERENCES: • Project plats for Hillman new residence • Structural Design Plans by Baker Engineers dated November 19, 2002 • Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. (March 29, 2001, June 28, 2002) • Site photographs GEOTECHNICAL DECLARATION A) Plan -Review: This engineer has reviewed the Project Plans and Structural Plans including foundation specifications by Baker Engineers. In my judgment, the Plans and Specifications prepared by the structural engineer conform to the recommendations of the Geotechnical Report. B) Risk: The risk of damage to the proposed Hillman single-family residence, or to adjacent properties, from soil instability will be minimal, subject to the conditions set forth in the March 29, 2001 and June 28, 2002 Geotechnical Reports. The proposed new Hillman residence will not increase the potential for soil movement, subject to on -site inspections by this engineer during construction. In my professional opinion, the statistical likelihood of earth movement on the Hillman site and new residence is less than one percent (1 %). The construction of the Hillman residence and inherent site drainage improvements will greatly improve overall soil stability in the area. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 • Shoreline, Washington 98155 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 City of Edmonds c/o Michel Construction Re: 15915 - 74th Place West, Edmonds December 9, 2002 Page two As previously stated, this engineer strongly recommends the City of Edmonds perform its due diligence regarding up -slope properties and proper drainage management. In other words, slope stability depends on up -slope neighbors not,"dumping" storm water onto the slope face itself. ADDITIONAL GEOTECHNICAL RECOMMENDATIONS: None. As previously discussed in geotechnical reports, on -site inspections by this engineer are required. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. E 18�21I3I a D 3 DMB:vb �0 ien M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer Vic 0 bcly— h ty &J -0 V- F 4'6 o,-,v6 /u azo ( t 1 3 4 5 6789 � 516�8Q tiLo 1" BAKER ENGIN ERS, INC., P.S. -1 01010 01 o 10010 STRUCTURAL DESIGN 001001 123 4TH AVE. N. bakerengineers@aol.com EDMONDS, WA 98020 SINCE 1977 DATE: November 18, 2002 CLIENT: Tom & Linda Hillman 11410 NE 12e Street #595 Kirkland, WA 98034 ATTENTION: Building Department, City of Edmonds PHONE: (425) 771-6666 FAX: (425) 771-6558 SUBJECT: Lead Design Professional Designation and Statement Dear Building Department Reviewers: Baker Engineers Inc., P.S. has reviewed the geotechnical report, by Dennis M. Bruce, PE, dated March 29, 2001 regarding the new proposed residence at 15915 74�h PI. W., north of Meadowdale Rd. We understand the report's recommendations and have incorporated these recommendations and established measures into the design to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage from any earth movement;predicted in the report. If there are any questions regarding the above, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, Baker Engineers Inc., P.S. Edwin F. Baker, PE, SE Principal S Tr vis McCandless, PE Staff Engineer ✓YvICe°FWAS �j,,.`�`- CO 1= 8898 EXPIRES 2/10/2003 RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER STREET FILE ..................................... WSTOWD - [W ' MVEP r HTAT "L4N M=6 AkEes FOP►M 461 .......................... ................ A coordinated utility environment which maximizes j o i o provide quality service or the citizens of Edmonds ��� T P 9 t1' f YOU WILL BE GIVEN A CONFIRMATION NUMBER BY EACH UTILITY ONCE YOU HAVE INFORMED THEM OF YOUR PROJECT. SITE ADDRESS: J5115 114TN PUS # PUp— Bob Kakaley — 425-670-3214 You will need to provide PUD with a site plan and a completed New Service Questionnaire. PUGET SOUND #�d�r✓ (J �� 1 ENERGY New Customer Construction Call to verify gas availability and to coordinate service install. Department - 1-888-321-7779 You will need to provide parcel number, contact phone number and mailing address. You will need to provide Verizon with the location of your Dow Brandley 425-710-4118 project, ,total line requirement, and the date in which service is required. A copy of your development plan may be required. # A7�T oniiADONnD You will need to proved AT & T Broadband with the location of 253-437-6906 or e-mail: your project, a copy of your development and site plan (digital wa-ope-north@broadband.att.com copy if available.) The date in which service is required and a �I list of contact names. hone numbers & mailing addresses. . pb�N'PIC a phi_ # IA ( 9 �.s Steve Dunphy - 425-774-7769 You will need to provide OV WSD with the survey map of your For customers in Olympic View Service Area site and complete a development information form. THIS FORM MUST BE COMPLETED AND GIVEN TO DEVELOPMENT SERVICES STAFF AT THE TIME OF PERMIT SUB C 8 1 3 5 8789 9 8 80 1111111 11 4 641 3 110 �11 °°BAKER ENGII RS INC. P.S. -101010 `-°ioo;o oSTRUCTURAL DESIGN 001001 123 4TH AVE. N. bakerengineers@aol.com EDMONDS, WA 98020 SINCE 1977 DATE: November 18, 2002 CLIENT: Tom & Linda Hillman 11410 NE 124 h Street #595 Kirkland, WA 98034 ATTENTION: Building Department, City of Edmonds SUBJECT: Structural Engineer Declaration Dear Building Department Reviewers: PHONE: (425) 771-6666 FAX: (425) 771-6558 Baker Engineers Inc., P.S. has reviewed the geotechnical report, by Dennis M. Bruce, PE, dated March 29, 2001 regarding the new proposed residence at 15915 7e PI. W., north of Meadowdale Rd. We understand the report's recommendations and have explained to the owner the risk of loss due to potential slides on the site. We have incorporated the recommendations of the geotechnical engineer and have used established measures with the design to reduce the potential risk of injury or damage from any earth movement predicted in the report. If there are any questions regarding the above, or if we may be of further assistance, please contact this office. Sincerely, Baker Engineers Inc., P.S. 4��7/4 0 Edwin F. Baker, PE, SE Principal 400 r;LTdless, PE Staff Engineer EXPIRES 2 / 10 / 2003 RECEIVED DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER ST REET FILE �5gt5 6,4 City of Edmonds" Permit No'�GZ-3� RIGHT -.OF -WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: &2502 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: '742�1 RA? AST B.- Type of Work (be specific): AU/A/C� op,064 STO, t 6WA110 &1%//1/6_ C. Contractor:C�A67ko &'T%Ai Mailing Address: Yo7 1-7%2. �;t�� State License D. Building Permit # (if applicable E. f.: ❑ Commercial ❑ Multi -Family INSPECTOR: ,❑ Subdivision ❑ Single Family F. PAVEMENT CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO CONCRETE CUT: ❑ YES ❑ NO Contact: A 1 01/ .e Phone: Z S 7 /_Z�, %Z Liability Me ewer Pe Pro ct Bond: (if applicable VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) OF'CUT X INDEMNITY:. Applicant understands by his/her signatur to this application he/she holds the City of Edmonds,. harmless from injuries, damages or cldims'of any kind or description atsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees,. inclu Ong but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs'and attorney fees by reason of granting this per t. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKM NSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK STIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A EBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. t. ♦ Traffic control and public safety sh be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as requir d. by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying. completion of the required training in ,their possess' n. . ♦ Restoration is to be in accord ce with City codes. All street -cut. trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to th end of the workday- NO EXCEPTIONS. ♦ Three sets of construction dr wings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL, AL -A -DIG (1' 800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE AB O E STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE AT ALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS i r Signature: % �. (Contractor or Agent) Date: FOR CITY USE. ONLY Approved by: Right-of-way Fee: Time Authorized: Void After / / Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Special Conditions: Restoration Fee: Total Fee: T Receipt. No: - .� Issued by: f Q UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: DATE: Inspector's Signature For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. i NO WOIZK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO 1)ElZMIT ISSUANCE Ihc.1B913 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering January 23, 2002 Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 — 212th Street SW, #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 Mr. Don Henderson 15825 — 75th Place West Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Right of Way Permit #01-208 — Project on 74th:Place West Dear Mr. Michel and Mr. Henderson: GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR This is to confirm the agreement reached, on January 23, 2002 regarding the construction of the right-of-way improvements by Rob Michel, Michel Construction, Inc., on 74th Place West in Edmonds. It is agreed as follows: Mr. Michel agrees to: • Relocate the paved surface of the new road to the eastern edge of the 70 Place West right-of-way, and relocate the associated utilities accordingly. • Relocate the hammerhead/driveway entrance to Lot A 20 feet to the south. • Remove those trees (but leave the stumps) on the northeast corner of Mr. Henderson's property, to be flagged for removal by Mr. Henderson on January 23, 2002. • Stabilize the site of tree removal within the right-of-way. Install grass for erosion control to prevent slides. • Plant new landscaping of Mr.Henderson's reasonable choice to replace the screening effect for the hot tub formerly provided by the trees that are subject to removal. Replacement plants to be no taller than 6 feet in height at the time of planting. • Relocate Mr. Henderson's fence to a minimum of 2 feet to the west of the west edge of the new paved roadway thickened edge. Only that portion of the fence within 2 feet of the new asphalt pavement will be relocated. In no case will any part of the existing fence be relocated any further to the east than is presently existing. • Submit AutoCAD final as -built drawings to the City upon completion of the work. Incorporated August 11, 1890 ° Sister City - Hekinan, Japan TO 'j'ia y�►`�j�r - .. .. �4 t`' .. .. . A RIP City of Edmonds Permit No: RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: 16JAA) v�- A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B. Type of Work (be specific C. Contractor: G Gs C- lJt�i"yT Mailing Address: Phone: ('T•2�� 77, -3 % State License #: Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): NIA Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): rt/�/"4 E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Eroject ❑ EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, AT& T, OVWD) ❑ Multi -Family �] Single Family Other r ea d INSPECTOR: (SiLf F. PAVEMENT CUT: RYES O G. SIZE OF CUT wh X CONCRETE CUT:: ❑ YES A0 INDEMNITY: Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application he/shel holds the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason ofgranting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS ` COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT. ♦, Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying, completion of the required training in their possession. :r` ♦ Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with:asphalt nor City - approved, material prior to the end of the workday = NO EXCEPTIONS: ♦ Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HAVE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I MUST MAKE THE PINK COPY OF THE PERMIT AVAILABLE ON SITE ATALL, TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: %CN Date: (Contractor o gent) era FOR CITY USE ON k-ght-of-way Approved by: a S 02 Fee: "� f Time Authorized: Void After k Disruption Fee/Fund 111: Special Conditions: 1�'(l R - Restoration Fee: W` - Total Fe e� 1-.> A1P*0� VLAAI115. Receipt No: _rw �<' JMA'1' 1 P' 4 t K' 04 Issued by: d il- lit `s r 05"M4, u, r_.n-n a I cart- 1JPON-00..MI?,L-I;tEI.ON--O,&PE—F.Pil�TTED-WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL INSPECTION 'IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER 18.00 OF THE EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (Phone 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326) FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK:. DATE: Inspector's Signature . For inspection requirements see Engineering Inspection Information handout. DAMy Documents\Forms\EngnmgUtOWpermit_ doc AFTER RECORDING RETURN TO: Public Utility District No. 1 of Snohomish County Attn: Real Estate Services - 04 P.O. Box 1107 Everett, WA 98206. r SNONOMISN COUNTY WWI PUBLIC UTILITV DISTPICT NO. T RECEIVED JUN 2 3 2003 PERMIT COUNTER /.skis ,'?I'��G✓ ORIGINAL DISTRIBUTION EASEMENT Underground E- SW 05(27-4)/JAS (328830/06) R/W 6965 4526 THIS INDENTURE made this day of , 20 , between THOMAS W. HILLMAN Trustee and LINDA B. HILLMAN Trustee of THE HILLMAN FAMILY TRUST hereinafter referred to as Grantor, PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO. 1 OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, and Verizon Northwest Inc. , hereinafter referred to as Grantee; and ; hereanafter.relerfed to as , WITNESSETH:! WHEREAS, Grantor is the owner of certain lands and premises situated in the County of Snohomish , State of Washington, described as follows: All that portion of Tract 33 of Meadowdale Beach Supplemental Plat, according to plat recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 42, records of Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33; THENCE East along the North line of said Tract a jdistance of 220.81 feet; THENCE South in a straight line to a point on thelSouth line of said Tract, which is 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; THENCE Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to the Point of Beginning. Situate in the County of Snohomish, State of Washington. Tax Parcel No. 00 5133 000 033 00 (A portion of SW 05-27-04) AND WHEREAS, the Grantee is desirous ofIacquiring certain rights and privileges across, under and upon said Property. NOW, THEREFORE, Grantor, for and in consideration of the sum of One Dollar ($1.00) and other valuable consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged, hereby conveys and grants to Grantee, its agents, contractors, successors and assigns, the perpetual right, privilege, and authority to construct, erect, alter, improve, extend, repair, operate, and maintain underground lelectric distribution line facilities consisting of conduits, cables, lines, vaults, switches and transformers, communication lines, fiber optic cables, semi -buried and ground mounted facilities and pads and any other necessary or convenient appurtenances, across, under and upon that portion of the Property ("Easement Area" herein) described as follows situated in the County of Snohomish , State of Washington, to -wit: The West 10 feet of the above described property. Together with the right of ingress to and egress from said easement area across .adjacent lands of the Grantor, for the purpose of constructing, reconstructing, repairing, renewing, altering, changing, patrolling and operating said facilities, and the right at any time to remove said facilities from said lands. Also the right at all times to cut and/or trim all brush, timber, trees or other growth standing or growing upon the property of Grantor which, in the opinion of Grantee, is necessary for the operation and maintenance of Grantee's facilities and/or constitute a menace or danger to said facilities or to persons or property by reason of proximity to said line. Grantor and the heirs, successors, or assigns of Grantor hereby covenant and agree not to construct or permit to be constructed any structures of any kind on the easement area without approval of the District. The Grantor and the heirs, successors or assigns of Grantor covenant and agree not to do any blasting or discharge any explosives within a distance of three hundred (300) feet of said line without giving reasonable notice in writing to the Grantee, its successors or assigns, of intention so to do. The rights, title, privileges and authority hereby granted shall continue to be in force until such time as the Grantee, its successors or assigns, shall permanently remove said facilities and appurtenances from said lands, or shall otherwise permanently abandon said line, atiwhich time all such rights, title, privileges and authority hereby granted shall terminate. The Grantor also covenants to and with the Grantee that Grantor is lawfully seized and possessed of land aforesaid; has a good and lawful right and power to sell and convey same; that same are free and clear of 8 TREEi FILE encumbrances, except as above indicated; and that Grantor will forever warrant and defend the title to said easement and the quiet possession thereof against the lawful claims and demands of all persons whomsoever. Any mortgage on said land held by the Mortgagee is herebysubordinated to the rights herein granted to the Grantee, but in all other respects the said mortgage shall remain unimpaired. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, this instrument has been executed the day and year first above written. Please sign and have notarized below i (REPRESENTATIVE ACKNOWLEDGMENT) State of Washington County of FhI � I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that C 1uvAl <c 5 f Li N O A U HAd signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of I � P-V4 t c_7 'C ye.y1,C to be I the free and voluntary act for.the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Notary Public 6jt6 `af �Aftlitiington DEB ORAH S. HOGAN My Appointment Expires Apr 3, 2W7 State of Washington County of Dated Si4neture of Notary Public Title Nota Public My appointment expire j L�O3 I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument, on oath stated that (he/she/they) (was/were) authorized to execute the instrument and acknowledged it as the of the free and voluntary act for the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument. Dated: Signature of (Seal or Stamp) Notary Public Title Notary Public My appointment expires to be r s � � / k., tl.� � �o • �" .,� fit: � .,wS •.; � \ / /� v ol � / v HDATE RECEIVED ' PERMIT EXPIRES USE PERMIT. CITY OF EDMONDS ; ZONE - I NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT# ADDRESS OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ` - (� p /I A PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO/%,f 0 w MAILING ADDRESS LID FEE $ 3 I ��te J p., TESCP Approved O %i [S/' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL TREET MAP RW Derma Requires. 4; � Street uae Permit Req'd CITY SIP ,Ca TfLEPIIQNEi .r,a rsm_ a ay. EXISTING PROP SED Inspection Required .�,:... •'""+`........, Sidewalk Required ��•/� ,y/ [ ^ a " "'� �`jJ �6�n..,+ .REQUIREA DEDICATION. FT undergroune K�. r^L• �� 1 Wiring required NAME " .., w^� i ,' METER SIZE LINE Sit E NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED A V T. 4✓O 6 YES NO w ADDRESS REMARKS Z 2 ® •` I� , �r • OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EE114 jRROOSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE CITY ZIP v TELEPHONEE f r os � "" , `4 0T6 - OTV45I L 190C11 4.15-191)(0-5103 Z&!�-Vw sk4smms x3 zl-.Sg"a NAME r r� ' f / A ( CBL #C Ij1AiZ /�� „I ,yam � � 4614 L LiC, 1 Old OJg INEERING REVIEWED B`YvW/fle 7l(/1+� ATE ¢ ADDRESS tijyt4 ,1 20 4 10 ��� W 0 FIRE REVIEWED BY Y DATE w CITY ZIP' TELEPHONE G�MaN �r5 BC�O�5• -� AA rm rr STATE LICENSE NUMBER ; EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY VARIANCE L#ION BOND (�%1[3YESANO ERWD..- POSTED M (6 Re G I C W A D9 4 $..�.� •�+... SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT a PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. PLCOMTE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PRo� ED 00-5 �-000• 0�3E -00 NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SI/D/��i REAR FRONT LIR SIDE REARCOMPLIANCE OR c7 ❑ ADDITION ❑ COMMERCIAL ❑ CHANGE OF USE �O d ', O / �' ' �' , i PARKING LOT AREA PLANNING'REVIEWED BY DATE ga REMODEL I,% ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN REO'D I PROVIDE l� a ❑REPAIR D FENCE --CYDS ❑ '( X FT) RKS � � OTHER G H B. ❑ CA - DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ CARPORT ROCKERY WALL ❑ FIRE ALARRE SPRINKLES4®/ �r (TYPE OF USE, PINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: CHECKED BY TYP N�TR�CTION CO E OCCUPANT V ,/t/// GROUP GNUMBER NUMBER OF p CRITICAL p m OF DWELLING i AREAS �� 'SPECIAL INSP CTION 1 /faYj CCUPAN O STORIES UNITS NUMBED _ " REQUIRED YES f�7 �a^^►►�• ( LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE L S O Z ESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 9 G ° N w S `rD UU A ' VALUATION W1 All ISG D �' r 1411 Descri tion FEE Descri tidn FEE P P Ai Plan Check State Surcharge J HEAT SOURCE I GLAZING %LO SLOPE % ' y Building Permit,j : City Surcharge .� PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED GATE w,; •_ �" Plumbing .�,-; es� Mechanical '•.,THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT cilviRS WORK TO t BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS;"MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Gradin SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review ^ZkY �^ W PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS a PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR • PROVIDED WORK IS START ITHIN 180, , • s Engr. Inspection 110« SEE BACK OF PIN R R MORE ORMATI0 rn 'APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, EIRS, ASSIGNS ANDS cly5ofis ` Fire Review /;', "^ Plan Chk. Deposit Q7 IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND A LD I E CITY OF t EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, NTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES -OF WHATEVER NATURE; ARISI(JGrDI, E�TLY Oh INDIRECT FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE'OF THI§yPE IT §HAL N�}Ty8 J! 9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIPElyl NT. .. I�IY CITY O DINANC2f"� �ndscape Insp. TOtaLAmt. Due �O i NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFQgCE�NY OROINANCEtPROVISION.• Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLIPATIQN; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR T /DU AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL HEt_ U} THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LANDS REGULATING CONSTRUC• CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged.inspace provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. OFF NAIURE DATE" SIG A E W E P E DATE SIGNED (425) 771 -0220 IfRE ED BY DATE ATTENTIONI� Gj oyl M 1333 �;r' r IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCC Y A BOILDING,'OR STRUCT I UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL • FILE • YELLOW /1NSPEQTf0R CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR 04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN• ACCOUNTING Q`J RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... S FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... Wall........... ; ............... Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............. PP Rough -In ................... 1 Commercial Final ...... HEATING: Gas Test .................... Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING .; ........................ U4 FRAMING ........................ &_0 1� - FIRST FLOOR FRAMING... MS 6 - C) 6r INSULATION ................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... • SHEETROCK NAILING ... TVNS Lo —De-66r SPECIAL INSPECTION ... MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL, FOR OCCUPANCY .................. 1,SfdeSewer#. Amout Paid $ ReCefpt*,;7�56_ Dab Lssurd ­-5/ WaterMiterSize__ �34 Amount iald eceipt # ivatcrurcogSea ROW Amount, Paid $.Receipt 6 Date /G{�(/w / �b DATE RECEIVED . �' �,�' ss FPERMIT EXPIRES If CITY OF EDMONDS SE t"o"? PERMIT ZONE NUMBER400 ALAI CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB sulTE/APru ADDRESS OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS Twom As Va. I i ' A A �(_ v RDA 1 / ` PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO1,10 ' 'Y LID FEE $ MAILING ADDRESS ufl PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL TREET MAP TESCP npMro=&d s�et� aP nnit eq'a ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROP SED InspecCITY SIdwsonequiredd SlAewalk Required K� V {, I 1 (603� �V 1 'g, 8a —� C��✓ REQUIRED DEDICATION FT ^ a o� NAME ( METER SIZE LINE �/�rt SIZE II NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED YES NO Q �i CAM T. CQ 50tA {�I t . ADDRESS 0 T V �I REMARKS OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLIDRAINAGE z c;k ' ►� Gmstih)6nTr&) '(lll14f6 r 1- CITY ZIP TELEPHONE pTNr-11. 150C>LI - 0('v-3 03 x-5 ,b rr�- S&wtac NAME jCBL#�JQ ... , / 1 �"} V\/ U �J �Q{V O✓(J O' ` 9 INEERINGI REVIEWED BY DATE V a` ADDRESS � TH S 00 FIRE REVIEWED BY ..,; DATE CITY ZIP T LEPHONE STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE ":;. - CHECKED'BY VARIANCE OR.,CU „ , ;; SHORELINE OR ADBR .. + INSPECTION r ';R Q'D BOND POSTED I�11 G 1� ctoc 1 D9 � -�' .. ors D $ - SEPA REVIEW '. -. "SIGN AREA Y HEIGHT PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT, PARCEL NO . ; , . , . -D0-D33—d0 ECO�E EXEMPT : ALLOWED,, , PROPOSED 1.ALL� � PROPOSED ' 00-5 , _ NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH. SLYALLOWED LOT COVERAGE PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)u FRONT -SIDE REAR �_P,ROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) FRONT UR SIDE REAR ❑ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR ❑ CHANGE OF USE O `� � � �l r' S❑ ' z REMODEL '' ❑ ❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN PARKING READ PROVIDED LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED. DATE g � Q FENCE ❑ REPAIR 1d UA 'CYDS ❑ ( X FT), ,. /TANKS— EMARKS Q +l S ❑ OTHER ❑ DEMOLISH ❑ GIdGARAGE RETAINING WALL - FIRE SPRINKLER CARPORT ROCKERY ❑ . FIRE ALARM 923 " (TYPE OF USE, OUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: S CHECKED BY TYPE NSTRI/CTION CODE OCCUPAN At / GROUP a NUMBER OF NUMBER OF ` DWELLING I CRITICAL w� SPECIAL SP , PAN O STORIES UNITS r ,„ NUMBER ✓ REOUREDAREAS EISN 1 LOAD DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS'PER'UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D 9 G o t\l W At VALUATION ' Description xFEE Description FEE n. e Plan Check _ State Surcharge 3� HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % dL : SLOPE % .;Building.Permita-' City Surcharge CHEC NO: VESTED DATE�� sPLAN iPlumbing �`' Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT C VERS WORK TO t 9 BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Gradin g G DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review D« y A CIO PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS IL PERMIT LIMIT. 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT; ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF N EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY 9 FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landsca a Ir1S P- P Total Amt. Due i NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' Recording Fee Receipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT 1 HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. 1 AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27. (42^5) OFF RE DATE (�DATE SIG E W ER A DATE SIGNEEED. I� 1 ^ 771 —0220 RE ED BY ATTENTION off 1333 c�"/)� IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAL- FILE YELLOW - INSPECAR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR j 04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES GREEN -ACCOUNTING \ RcE. 4E, W.M. -- NOTE CHAIN LINK FENCE: RELOCATE EXISTING CHAIN LINK FENCE LOCATED FROM STA 3+00 TO STA ;+05 TO PROPERTY LINE. CONTACT HOMEOWNER PRIOR TO MOVING FENCE. APPROVED BY PLANNING ` 1�- . Il-,bo�oL THICKENED EDGE @ EXISTING DRIVEWAYS ALL EXISTING DRIVEWAYS WILL BE ADJUSTED TO MATCH BACK OF THICKENED EDGE. I�lo &IFA-0146t ",orca' 7Im--t cW21c ac)() . CL4-� � e' P tt-ogo S eta ►A,e M t2�'icW-e'kn SEES TO 3E REMOVED CMP p 0.507. L I 'rr' jv yam! "f[ E 44 PVC 3 !4 A -- CB#i , Type 2, 48„ / GE 93.83 OE 90.70 IE 88.30 (24" A, A- (D IJel�v@cu ���J � ��rG(af.� c_AYiST. %'-eQ, �eN — 51 4 �� 1aGC u Cat uj s�rttlos h PVC @ 2.721 i EX CB 42A, GE 94.40 IE 86.90 WIRE FENCE 94 -�- — - 98 31 ALDER 1 C 41 A=L k %BLOWIOFF -_ 10 ek E D�f---- 4 L AL -R-8 1 1 RE 02 r R 8 / - __ --- #59 -4 Q. - — tr P C 87 MAPt� �� K' `.�/1/\, ...X • ':1 `1� mac.' -.�_ _ _I _ _.. � .._._,_.r-�- .S.L}' -�'.. -�7i' `•. .; �.�} � �..'77 � r a r r , `-_ ._..-•-.�- TT.`»„ pia-. �- FI R L n C ALDER Y ALDER 16 AL ER 18 i Erg %B 42E3 6` a LVE r �� - / GE 117.03 � '� ( A�DER 12f .S �16 ----- ALDER 1 iE 113. -'0 rd- SCIFICKING/1eoATIER 6 12 �^!_DER 12 s� ER 2 44 s -- IN r. CITY OF EDIAONDS BUILDING D,FPARTMENT WORK ' t" ADDRESS 01/ll N' = R - APPROVED DATE: BLDG. OFFICIAL NUMBER zovz -c)n g ,DEVELOPMENT CITY OF E MoNDS CTR. TREE T FilE a E I. -al 20' {J - n PWR POLE - Hr_OF�WAy CONC PV14r TELEPHONE SERVICE NATURAL. GAS INTERNET SERVICE C) iI '� PWR POLE TELEPHONE SERVICE TO BE BY NATURAL GAS SUPPLY LOCATED IN N. AT&T BROADBAND TO EXTEND VERIZON TO BE PROVIDED THROUGH MEADOWDALE ROAD. SUPPLY PIPING SERVICE TO SITE THROUGH (E) w/uo DROP GARAGE 18 CMP CULVERT I Q , � O/H tmL � " _ I o ~II►� �?, �, ASPHgcr � / #15927 (E) .UNDERGROUND CONDUIT IN 74TH TO BE INSTALLED IN (E) CONDUIT IN UNDERGROUND CONDUIT IN 74TH II oto r ® IE 89.0 PLACE WEST. CONFIRMATION 74TH PLACE WEST. COORDINATE W/ PLACE WEST. CONFIRMATION #. a- 111. 0 p "f .. YARD 3 #9P001 DB134 P.S.E. 120202.01 I W "' •. ! " "- EpGE OF DRAIN 1O 98 CO N SMALL PUMP CONFIRMATION # 324456991 �- a WTR®V FORA Nc l'VMT = LIMIT OF 10' WIDE STORM SEWER ESMT, AF# 83093 L ROAD _ WgrER �, v " ELECTRICAL SERVICE OIII m EDGE OP o�vEL .tjA R ` Asper-T PWT POWER SERVICE TO NEW RESIDENCE all RIGI-j _ _ GRAB' ROAD ! '�'I Annnow 90 P.U.D. TO E (GONFlRMATIOUNDERGROUND. COORD. W/ W p s _ _ _ _ _arER 'ft 92 � so SPUD-00100-2002) 90 II 18" CMP CULVT I - — _ _ R N 09 1 N NOTE: ROCKERIES NOT I I FOR COMPLETE HORIZONTAL CONTROL, IE 91.2 I s 0 ER _ ?28 „ REFERENCE RECORD OF SURVEY BY COb U — _ E POWER PEDESTAL EXCEEDS FEET ABOVE 4.3 _ ORIGINAL GRADE WITHIN g4 THIS FIRM DATED 5/30/01 - �� _ 120_ SS C o a •• .� _ SETBACKS CB E MAP FILE 6500_1 RS. n �� - _ — _ _ 94 g4 p VERTICAL DATUM w 10SEMENT � — __ � Son, VERTICAL DATUM -CITY' OF EDMONDS SEWER MAP, SHEET 17 C OF E. FILE '� =r TONE — _ 0 TRANSFORMER 01-82-069, APR 83. CL IE OF SS MH #45 (APPROX 120' EAST OF INT _ RET INI8 WATER 74TH & MEADOWDALE). ELEV - 110.61 Ise 4 — _— SS H A , Off' \ _ `_ems I EE CIVIL G 98 SITE BENCHMARK (BM) - NORTHEAST CORNER OF CONCRETE SLAB/HOUSING _ 100 FOR SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT (SS C/O). 21SOUTHWESTERLY OF I INFO AND t0.0 _ SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 'A'. ELEV - 93.00 ( io2 too (INFO 25 FRONr tot ITS OF NE 104 i M 9 EASEMENTS CC 10106 ° PEDEST LEGAL DESCRIPTION a / a 10 H W I 0 R Owners: Linda & Tom Hillman I ! CB 11410 NE 124th Street #595 g4 4 D SASHED LINE Kirkland, WA 98034-4305 ' INDICATES .� , Assessors Parcel Number: 00513300003300 _ = AEA I y - sa --.. SS MH A , 8 Residence located at 15915 74th Place West, Edmonds, s - es�. Snohomish County, Washington 98026 described as follows: b too A �• 10o PARCEL A: �l • \,. o �' ,02 � All that portion of Tract 33, MEADOWDALE BEACH 1o4 ALD E ♦ I SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, according to the plat thereof recorded AlnrP 1n _ r- _ 1� Volume 5 of Plats Page 42 in Snohomish County, N -- ALL EXISTING S EAST OF BUFFER TO REMAIN. PROVIDE PROTECTION (TEMPO AfICING) DURING CONSTRUC BUFFER S�CK / \ 'B4 1:3 TREE PLAN SCALE 1" = 20'-0" 0 _ I n --` Washington, described as follows: "0I J, Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33; of 1 thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet; thence South in a straight line to a point on the South line rn .. of - said Tract, which is 230.29 feet West of the Southeast '1A corner of said Tract; 108 1 _ . . 110 5' " j 110 1 +12 I f _ - -- _ _ - � _ _ - - ( 112 ,-O" NIG (IAA ' 0" rPLANTI AREA I I rPARKINAREA I I III I I ( 20 R UILDING HEIGHT I I ! CALCULATION I I 1 SEE CIVIL GRADING o / RECTANGLE I I PLAN FOR I I ,'110 o I I I I RE -GRADING 0 l- ROCKERY RETAINING I I I 'THIS AREA _ ALLUT thence West, --alongthe South line Of saki Tract to the - I - Southwest corner of said Tract 33; ! / _ _ _ _ N 0) 25' SIDE "-'---CONC. f OUNDAT16N , C alon Westerly line of said Tract 33 to s-r , thence Northerly g y r / z SETBACK / RETAINING WALL point of beginning. Oo - LINE BUFFER S�B�GE I0I 1 AcK > > ACCESS EASEMENTS • _ q corner of said Tract 33; ,?0 11$ PARCEL A o' SIDE I 'NI 122 I Commencing at the SW I 1 e S property rt line n e 115' • I J -- 1�? �20 - SETBACK thence E along the p p y , \ TOE LIMIT of 10' WID thence N, perpendicular to the S property LINE " STORM SEWER / \ ESMT. AF# line, 10 ; ?e OF o thence W parallel to S property line to a point on the W �oPE 8309300219 (AS line; n e; 128 '?" C c ALDER , � __ property '3� 128 '?e DEIJ 8 thence S to. the SW corner of said Tract 33. L l .. ' t?8 130 ' ' e `--t2 �— 128 128 14? 138 l34 131111. 2 I3g 4 ---� ' • . 1s0 a l49 13� ' Commencing at the SW corner of said Tract 34; thence E along the S property line 25'; thence N, parallel to the W property line, to a point 10' S of the N property line; thence E, parallel to the N property line, 90'; thence N, perpendicular to the N property line, to the N property line; thence W along the N property line to the NW corner of said Tract 34, thence S along the W property line to the SW corner of said Tract 34. 202 A 16 ��z M LOT ZONING , 4 �e RS-20 LOT COVERAGE CALCULATIONS LOT SIZE 0.63 ACRE (27,541 S.F.) 148 - HOUSE Sc GARAGE FOOTPRINT 3467 S.F. 50 — B PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE 12.5% COVERAGE �gz HEIGHT CALCULATIONS 162 — TREE REMOVAL SCHEDULE HEIGHT CALCULATIONS ALDER 6" (2) CORNER A 112 68' 8o"((10) CORNER B 112.50' 12" (19) CORNER C 119.50 16" (11) CORNER D 117.00' 18» (11 20 (1) — 461.68 / 4 — 115.42' AVERAGE GRADE MAPLE 16" (1) CLUMPP CLUMP (1) 115.42' AVERAGE GRADE PLUS 25.0— COTTONWOOD 40" (2) 140.42' (140'-5") MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT CARL J. COLSON -- ARCHITECT PLLC 23623 20th AVENUE W BOTHELL, WASHINGTON 98021 (425) 806-3703 PROJECT: HILLMAN RESIDENCE 15915 74th PLACE W EDMONDS, WA 98026 CLIENT: LINDA & TOM HILLMAN 11410 NE 124th Street #595 Kirkland, WA 98034-4305 (425)-825-7552 °�T,43 AtGISTERED 11t . AOWTEcr LWA )') ''COLSON STATE 46HINGTON SITE PLAN, 'i i EEC FILE APPROVED 13Y PLANNIN OP 148 142 140 '40 03 • q, , �3� — 'REAR UK k2 �f ' `rG152 'SO fyg AA4 6 160 148 DATE REVISION Sy� Is 1- 82 1�. \ 50 PERMIT REV. 1 118,54 e \ 'sA 1 1s 1g2 e ® 6-20-03 PERMIT REV. #2 151 le0 _ - 162 PERMIT REVIEWER NOTE: DATE REVISION THIS SITE PLAN SHOWS EXISTING GRADES ONLY FOR loll SPURPOSES.T E PLAN GRADINGINFORMATIONAL FOR EXISTING ANDEPROPOSED GRADESNGINEER REFER TO TREE PLAN AT LEFT OF THIS SHEET FOR LOCATION S CALE 1 = 2 0 ' '—' 0 OF EXISTING TREES TO REMAIN, EXISTING TREES TO BE REMOVED, AND NOTES FOR TREE PROTECTION DURING RECEiveD CONSTRUCTION. JUN LOT STAKES MUST EIE IN PLACE AT TIME OF Gnt1NDATION INSPECTION PERMIT SET PERMIT DRAWINGS This set of drawings is being This note applies only to the architectural drawings prepared by Carl J. Colson - Architect PLLC issued as a Permit Set and for Tom & Linda Hillman (Owners) and General Contractor (Builder). is subject to change and This entire set of architectural drawings is prepared as a Permit Set of drawings only for the adding of additional drawlsgs or Information as required by by City of Edmonds Owner and Builder for this project only. All details and drawings shown are for Permit purposes only and do not constitute the full set of details required to construct this project. The Builder be for developing construction details necessary to construct a weathertlght, review shall responsible Building Department. Do not use this drawing for unless this durable building. All flashing, weatherproofing, roofing, and waterproofing details and construction of these detail the full responsibility of the Builder and these details shall be construction drawing has a City of assemblies are and completo constructed per manufacturer requirements, building code requirements, and accepted Industry Edmonds Building Department "APPROVED" stamp upon Standards for performance. The Architect has not been contracted to perform Construction Administration services or completion of the Permit Construction Observation services for this project and is not liable or responsible for determining Review Process. Do not use bidding adequacy of construction of building envelope or details. The Builder be responsible for inspecting and verifying that all flashing, weatherproofing, for or estimating purposes unless authorized by shall roofing, and waterproofing details are built correctly and meet Builder's approval and accepted Owner / Developer. industry standards before being covered by subsequent construction work. 4 3 ZUUJ PERMIT COUNTER DATE DWG -DATE SCALE VARIES CJCA CJCA DESIGN DRAWN V �� f i tl,Zlb�7671 �!ZI57- ( 27 /-?// 7,V z!!!�Z -�; / A-91 lvl,��7111-1 Y- NOTES: 1. 70PO C 80U N DA RY I= Ro M C G ScsKVEy©, 2, FOR GLAkI?Y� Pec.lou©uz 47I CON►FE1, 7�EaS ON S17E ARE NOT 5HOWN. 3. PROPO-S D C49A )Ii,-iG EWES) DRIVF-WAY 4ND HOUSE 1700 "PR►NT 6N LOT 39f ARE' :5 HOsR11114 FOR REF-IFRENCEP I 12�0 1 I I 2 5' B59 L LEGS ND �---- EA 13T►NG CONTOUR LINE 116 ; ROPOSEQ GRADING LINZ ROCKERY KEY5TONE WALL "x EDGE OF NEW PAUEM.Ew7 .513 S 050Ig1lstt W \10 25' BsgL -0110- SCA L.E { tl q hO` N 150 vj' o I I I zss' uFFL=R O, ( 70 �. �� ;gym..., ,•->~os: �]'°m'...`�__ _ \� zz raj Rp 117 120 77- IF Ro GARGr vliVF �. �` ``' I , I � I2Q, W PROVIDE SWALE, GRADE AND A 2'-0" MINIMUM SHY DISTANCE DRAIN TO APPROVED SYSTEM. SHALL 8E MAINTAINED BETWEEN 12" OF COMPACTED SOIL OVER ROCKERY AND PRIVATE ACCESS GEOTEXTILE SLOPE TO DRAIN ROAD SURFACE. UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL 2y'1EXIST/ORIGINAL GRADE V I ROCK FILTER LAYER, I 1 x¢ v I 12' MINIMUM WIDTH 6 � Q i GEOTE MLE I ROAD FILTER FABRIC n `) w I SURFACE to 4J �. {. 3 1/2 DIAMETER OF LARGEST ROCK IN BOTTOM COURSE OR 12', MIN 6"0 PERF RIGID I %• 't: a.rc <,y, WHICHEVER IS GREATER DRAIN PIPE. SLOPE TO �; y�;'.• �`; ��,^='��=�>`-' " DRAIN AND CONNECT TO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. 2%APE r PROVIDE CLEANOUTS. EQ EQ DISTANCE (D1)>HEIGHT (H1) UNDISTURBED NATIVE SOIL OR COMPACTED CRUSHED ROCK, AS GENERAL NOTES: REQUIRED LOCATION OF ROCKERY ADJACENT 1• SPECIAL INSPECTOR SHALL VERIFY RCCKERY HEIGHT, TO CITY R.O.W. SHALL BE LOCATED FOUNDATION MATERIAL, AND ROCK SIi . A MINIMUM DISTANCE EQUAL TO THE 2. QUARRY SPACES AND CRUSHED ROCK SHALL BE PLACED HEIGHT OF THE ROCKERY DIRECTLY FROM TRUCK OR OTHER SUTABLE CONTAINER IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN CLEAN BACKFILL_ 3. OPENINGS SHALL BE "CHINKED" WITH QUARRY SPAL.LS. 4. ROCKERIES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND STAMPED BY A LICENSED PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER IF GREATER THAN 8 FEET IN HEIGHT OR IF VARYING FROM THESE STANDARDS, OR IF THE CITY DETERMINES THAT SPECIAL CONDITIONS (SUCH AS CRITICAL AREA OR MEADOWDALE EARTH SUBSIDENCE LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA) ROCK SCHEDULE HEIGHT MINIMUM ROCK SIZE 111) BASE TOP 2 FEET 2-MAN 2-MAN 4 FEET 3-MAN 2-MAN 6 FEET 4-MAN 2-MAN 8 FEE[ 5-MAN 2-MAN REVISIONSdE STANDARD ' DETAIL ROCKERY DETAIL �890-1.990 DATE 4/1/03 SCALE NTS NO. E 00,21 6� L j HEP,D �� ► /,:_ !-' ROIt�E Foo7"II+Ica. PRAISE � \ I I ` I Tani I�t H' 1 ��� F IPE To c,8 I ;. I �� I z� I I� c`� 1 ,2 a 12-2- O I .,,.,,q I I ... Lis-- _ a�L..— i . ,%• � ( , � (2^ 1 = J PR0PP 0 oTE��i�1 �--_ IIz �° P�oPa5L7 THE KEYSTONE BLOCK WALL DETAIL SHOWN ON THIS DRAWING WAS OBTAINED FROM SHEET S-F1, DESIGN BY ALEX K. MOROSEOS, P.E. IT IS PROVIDED ON THESE CIVIL DRAWINGS FOR REFERENCE PURPOSES ONLY. REFER TO STRUCTURAL ANALYSIS - 74TH STREET KEYSTONE BLOCK WALL REPORT DATED 7-24-03 AND PREPARED BY ALEX K. MOROSEOS, P.E. AS WELL AS SHEET S-F1 FOR COMPLETE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS. I T MINIMUM PAVEMENT WIDTH TYPICAL GEO-F3RID REINFOkcEMENT (TYP). 2" AC PAVEMENT 2700 i_E3/FT (ALLOWABLE) 9EE Ell--5454cl (APPENDIX A - (:ALGULA7I0N5) s. '-*>,-*>,2" — 5/8" CSTC 4 > 320 $ GI /Cd = O.cto 4„ N 1-1/4„ CSBC APPROVED SUBGRADE -- s-v — EX7Rt(0RP c-uKB TOP OF GRADEGUARI71�AlL. --- `L' 18" - — —"• - - �KEY51-ONN E STADARD % UNIT NONWOVEN GEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRIC Iry .b' �11�11 II- II 3 a FISHER� s L W < 7zou yi ,a'i a �ulae a' 1491%r' 14 51 Sr 50TH p1H PL SW PL sW i y o � ` 150TN • SW pL •��: e P1 .,Fd "ur; �,%�.:).:),rf; i�t:vn:h.-:• 3,. 153RD PL SW 4 T� � _�__ a 156TH ?�ICO(�'`,N'i•: i� r' I 3 �3.. _ _ST r: _ _ SW 157TN 5T SN A� s� .� N J 3 2 MEADDWDALE i ________ y' 16( ¢ i ION e ST 5 ��` 16 ST PL S Q�,(�' �j• •� / 162N r— N r• BROPIA'S / H 3 161 163RD ST SW RD PL SW < SAY j 164TH PL SW P1 ;T SW 64T T S it ��' 165TH PL SW u.°+a}; � ¢ ¢ = P1 4T �I4l.'uM, FIRWOOD C / .'�`Tx 3 � yet:•:. ;.�'MS.. .. 165TH PL¢ � d -� -a HEAA7WDAL'Ek? SW � x �?4 > 16]7R \/I CIN IT MAP !I V2" DIA. GALV. BEL.OA I MAINTAIN ;z' rl �13OLT(TYP.) —r — SHY VIST14aCE _ / TIMBER GUARDRAIL BOLTED __. BETWEEN - --THROUGHTREATEDTIMDER GUARDRAIL '"`� _ POSTS (IYP.) ED6E F / __.- Gx6 TREATED TIMBER T12A V ELE D-____-----•_.__ •- POSTS-6' O.C. (TW.) WAY -- I % SLOPE L9 '., ',^ �' CONCRETE PIER '} — '�► -.I I = I l= I I..: I " . UN-R.EINFOP4ED GOIJGRETE N ;v f FOOTING (IYP.) = OR GRU5HE1D STONE L.EVELIING PAD \�4" PERFORATE[.) HARED PVC PIPE PLACE HOLES DOS^N AARV — e�ey Zot�setG_ Gg, _ 1' 5 ii2" i 1+ c;_1/2'' �TYPICAL BLOCK WALL TH,, DETAIL 15 APPLICABLE TO Cl (^TALL HEIGHT F TO q•. G U A R P „� A•• DETAIL (REFER 70 APPENDIX A (GALC.UL°,710N5) FOR it�TAI.L.ATION STANC)Ar2[x. Ji'`�► 91 L SPECIAL I�lSPFcTIoN 9EgL)uz P FOP, 6LOCIc WALL CONSTRucTION 61 I I i1�JI • 1 l\ Cai A U.� PATIO h, II I MA I W FF 115 ► 1 I �� `� I lO III,,. g .,�� EIS !� � I ( \\0 10(0 r�.'>}= I I I I174 RUca,ERY , _4 PATIo GnR�GE� It3 ,.;;' PROPO'sED BADE _ ida ---I ► Imo: �. ; >, �\ I 98 100 10 >�caCK fQ 2-0 20 050 70 80 100 110 120 ISO O(o7 _., r , 1 H f Gi-I I -�`, Ofo _ zs` TIE FOOT►N6 DRAIN P15cN14R,GE �, � J: J4a S• �¢ ', ro. CS *�3 OR 66 A ofi' 5 EC T N I-;'. __. SCALE I' IC { 1 Z I6 _' I )r I s _ � OCf� �ZiES T Td XcE D 31 ABO®:E 0P.161NAL GRAQE WITHIN ��I? A� Top or-7 2 90 1! , gq,Oz �" y6q� f ` ` 8�` �: `;�; ._ s as,�c O Bpi �yy o S�vaER �b, i i ------------- TNOTE: TIE ROCkERY- DRr�INSf}T H�MMEf1-H -soKEYSTDitALI - 47LF KE1`ST'(�NE -` {10 • ``'---.s cB � .� I' - i I K�,YS�r0���. 4�11��!-� `—= _ 7'.�H{G1"I KkYSTo� IL I,,r• � IIc, ) 1 Ssto ► "->g8.03 �; oT,Q`— MIN,HYP zo 4(TYP)vvvI oa 1-1/2' R 12 � CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE: GRb1NC?u�1NT►TI �5 a .•,.:. •:•."': ;••.-�,r'; m 1. CALL ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE (425-771-0220 ext 1326) TO SET UP A LOT' 33 PRE -CONSTRUCTION MEETING WITH OWNER, CONTRACTOR, DESIGN ENGINEER AND CITY L_ot 331m 1Mg0 I5R15 74 K - W. Plain (,kl<-+t 02- sb C DRIVEWAY GM )INOI CU,,T ,' 3. Y F,IL L' I I cY _rOTA1t_ PP-;VE-'1A;N( C_ RM OI RICO : LOTIS j l�.�l.�t T v 4 f ' i 140 5 LOT S 717 74�b PL . lair I - �-� PROP®SEA b�') M I F F= 115 __ _ ... ""° '",. `..` """=. �. `�•_:_ r _. -� GRAPE � LAWN DRIVEWAY Koc��R`� i. ' EXISTII�C� I PRor x:.- 1;s I ----' ..- '— GRADE I G r p i I I I i 1' R"::;'; :':•;•...;:•.:. �� ;,:, •, �. I I COQ z w - tr.[cc. t?E cut' & CUT. S33 CY p ESNot U ENGINEER. 2. TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES, INCLUDING DRAINAGE SWALE TO BE IN PLACE I o 2C) 30 .,;...:.,.•;.•;: ;.�.;,• ; ; — - — — --- OC N '- �L.� PILL FOR HOOSE le GAR14CrE FILL: 1 86 C Y AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CONSTRUCTION OR SITE CLEARING. STREL�` LL EXPOSED SURFACES TO i > (VOTE. OVER HALL THE GUT FROIM 3. CONTRACTOR IS TO PROVIDE DUST CONTROL MEASURES AS REQUIRED INLCLUDING SWEEPING. BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS PLACE SCORE MARKS EVERY 10' LOT 33 WILL .FE PLAGE3 C>N 4. ROUGH GRADE, INSTALL UTILITIES & STORM SYSTEM PER PLANS. CONC. EXTRUDED CURB TYPICAL TURNAROUND I-.OT 3,t INCL"UO NG CoN5TRUCTION 5. DESIGN ENGINEER SHALL INSPECT KEY PROJECT ASPECTS DURING CONSTRUCTION. TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION or-5HA'RED DRI VLWAY, 6. FINAL GRADE, PLACE AND HYDROSEED PER NOTES & DETAILS. ENTRANCE REQUIRED OUT FOR HOUSE 9 GAR AC E•: 227 C Y 7. REMOVE TESC FACILITIES PER CITY APPROVAL. IZ ME r I ; NOTE'. GRADING QUHnlT►'riES /ARE ROUGH CALCULATIONS AND Do NOT ACCDunIT FoR soil SWELLA�E oR ShRINK44E. I 1 I r � -- ell -----"•""` I��% � I _ 1.25% s f, I f I ( °%o ,. -GXISTINGr GRA91; j I �'PI�li#lAY App't�yVCD AS I TED I I 1 I Iko BY ;E IG NCI 10 20 30 40 50 (0 l0 60 90 100 110 120 13o 1e10 15o,P Y 1��? Oats: � ERICONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE COT- 91 CY r-I L L- � 244. C1' AIR 60 70 00 90 100 110 120 5EC`TI N µ 5Cf)LE I 1()' LOT 33 L EGG L" D ESCR I� O I UTILITY CONFLICT NOTE: -, CAUTION: THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL LOCATIONS PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXISTING UTILITIES AT THEIR LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATION OF SAID UTILITIES AS SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. All that portion of Tract 33, MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, Page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, -described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said, Tract 33; thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet; thence South in a straight line to a point on the South line of said Tract, which is 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 thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to point of beginning. 7-2,1-'03. REV 3: RFSFOND Tb cfTY 9,EVI1LW Cot4MENTS AVT`tb-7-•1g FIRE AND- AID ADDRESS SIGN -REQUIRED _ q - 03 �* REV 2. RZROND To (17Y ,'oMN E')q S PITTED N/tYZIr 5 ) Tt LOc:) T I O N. PENIS Ions I: 5315 �74t PL, N. RESPOND <117y EDMONDS,, W/V coltiPML-v"D 4 _ _ PREPARED BY: G R PI,, D 1 P ,v PLAN 101`:; DONNA L. BRESKE, P.F. �3 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. TOM L I N �-r I L L N A IN SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE: 425-334-9980 FAX: 425-334-7380 PATE, 10.22-I�2 SCFlL-E: I" =.70'� 5HEFT I of 2, 150 12�2- 120 0 DRAINAGE CONVEYANCE NOTES: 1. DOWNSPOUTS CONVEYING ROOFTOP FLOWS FROM THE GARAGE AND \ C IR Al 2. HOUSE 'TO BE ROUTED TO DETENTION S 90 U THE EASTERN PORTION OF THE SU RFA-CE FLAW � M PIPE #1. ROOF DRAINS MAY BE CONNECTED TO CB'S #1 AND #2. \ DRIVEWAY ARE TO EE C,09 V E YLD �- I So � 2. DOWNSPOUTS CONVEYING ROOFTOP FLOWS FROM THE WESTERN TO C$ -4-1. >fE1JCE r IT IS NO ���Y �0, SET TOP �.; r. CR C PORTION OF THE HOUSE ARE TO BE ROUTED TO DETENTION PIPE #2. , C ,-W. +I CONNECTED TO CB'S #3 AND #4. rJr) C(i � p Pl RE ROOF DRAINS MAY BE CO .._ _ ORA,] GE t{OCK &INEi7 CB TbP=11�. 5 Rp l� M/ iE' liD'S-out - C13#2' GAp,%E TYPE I -L TOP=112.05+,1- are 10�.29.4U 215CLEf}Wt 3o LF . FWJ 8ci`toM� G"PVC@ 2% VJ N�z , a R!}7�b 1.1.: ��, of o II FIFE - M ��3. Nam. CB I-CONTROLI-sTRuc? ­.1 -. II TYPE: I-L:.N'14(E)= I01.31 N 11 TOP= 112_0 I _� ilk IE�N-s)-_IO�.P-!N W/CRATED L10 I 1 ; DEC I-C W ATtE R POP_ ^ A A p 2 - ---1✓ ,� - = -� - - Top II V415ot-0 LID -w= 917 �S9 �.a ►RCN } =� �, � `0 six w �° f' S �j : E� P Y I/DLIQII� .` SS P'1 op f o G T FEN LF" �s / r.c PV c e I(o, 17, ` er,„� _ SLEEVE 41" {''VC V N 0 R WM 6LOCK WAL.I.. Wt7H Ot,ICTI 1► - 94 R 1�=90.os 0 -" . ;.... 90.E taP= q2 C8 #r._TYPE J i FL4 _ I HYD c'g 3 w7ypt: z _ 9 8 " cON'MoL STRUCTURE 1E �S Q�°°� `®uT TOP =101,7*1/- \\ /iC� loll GRRTE� Lr l i� IE(S) - 40, 26 - /N LINE S WA LEJr-. '/ WITH GRAVEL � � 2" I►vsr�E ORP/MGE 5WALE CRoss SECTION N. T. S. CB # 2 "-TYPE I - L _-1 CATCH BASIN TYPE 1-L 12ETENTION PIPE 41 E-7ig)L -7 LF `2' DMai - ADS - N 12 a.or�S CATCH BASIN TYPE 1 2' M I� N IZ 1 zio lZg 1� I20 III �14 110 I D$ 10& 104 -1 p2 1�v RS C.S-1'YPr_ - I 1410 -92.17- ouT WI•IT1r R TO Hou6R T9n'1Q. CONE a=NTRI�fvlCE CB N TYPE I TOP = 71A ti- lE= 12,5-OUT I � IM 3.1• // TRAF�IG �RRII�tG LID 'I I PAV1E et-__-T bit PVC ouT NOTCH vveIR 1)ETAIL G8 # I COMPrCTED f TRENCH FILLED DETENTION / VyiTH 3/4'"_ 11/7 R/ c, PIPE W/SHED GRnVEL OR PEA GRAVEL 0) 87 92 PETEN T I ON P I ICE f3EDDIN6 PETPIL (413OVE..yv l" MIi;S"/ -WIRE MESH (POULTRY NETTING) CATCH BASIN W1,GR.ATE-J \--- FILTERED WATER SEDIMENT BARRIER NOT TO SCALE CS .# [ "TYPE I- L 108-D - %" PVC -OUT 1E= 108 I/2 PIPE P/ANIETER CB A I T YPE- I -. CONTROL STRQCTUI\E PETIT 1 L. NoTcH WiF l? EL-- 19a.2,r.-- f- F-lCz HT = I FT, WIDTH=0.23Pr. tlo®25 E- 6 It P VC 2 PIPE PVC 6" PVC PIPE 107.5 L9r' MIN PUC CAP SIccURI^ VJI-rH ADHESIUI QRII-L a" PISMEVER ORI FICA IN CENTER OF CA P, CATCH BASIN NOTE: SAND COLLARS ARE REQUIRED WHERE PVC PENETRATES A CATCH BASIN 3 0 r 1- c�'i o l R = 25' MIN. �� �0000�000400000000o0o0aQo can c� O� Oo O'� Oo 0o Oo Oo Oo 0o Oo Oo Oo O � � � � 00000 �� Ooo Do Opo00�0o Ooo Ooo Do Ooo Oo . I� 4" x 6" QUARRY SPALLS I I PLACE GEOTEX77LE FABRIC BENEATH ROCK OTES: I. INSTALLATION: THE AREA OF THE ENTRANCE SHOULD BE CLEARED OF ALL VEGETATION, ROOTS AND OTHER OBJECTIONABLE MATERIAL. THE GRAVEL SHALL BE PLACED TO THE SPECIFIED DIMENSIONS. 2. AGGREGATE: 4' TO 6" CRUSHED BALLAST ROCK WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICAT70N 9-03.9 (1) 3. ENTRANCE DIMENSIONS: THE AGGREGATE LAYER MUST BE AT LEAST 6 INCHES THICK. IT MUST EXTEND THE FULL WIDTH OF THE VEHICULAR INGRESS AND EGRESS AREA. THE LENGTH OF THE ENTRANCE MUST BE AT LEAST 50 FEET. 4. MAINTENANCE: THE EN?RANgE SHALL BE MAINTAINED IN A CONDITION WHICH KILL PREVENT TRACKING OR FLOW OF MUD ONTO PUBLIC RIGHTS -OF -WAY. THIS MAY REQUIRE PERIODIC TOP DRESSING WITH 2-INCH STONE, AS CONDITIONS DEMAND, AND REPAIR AND/OR CLEAN OUT OF ANY STRUCTURES USED TO TRAP SEDIMENT: ALL MATERIALS SPILLED, DROPPED, WASHED OR TRACKED FROM VEHICLES ONTO ROADWAY OR INTO STORM DRAINS MUST BE REMOVED IMMEDIATELY. E.NIPORARY CONST i UCTION ENTRANCE to Le>+ 37> 5"-4Te,"_ Fz>r I-017 34- L,-;4 1 be luv" -SL TA-gr P-.W ►. + A ppt wnx� wt . C.5 # 1- TY PI� I- L.. C ONTM STRUCTURE 99. 0 Jf SECURF_ WITH ADHESIVE PRI LL. 5/0/1 0IIgMETER ORIFICE IN CENTEk 0 F CR P 18.30.050 Development approval standards for erosion and sedimentation control (ESC) plan. A- ESC Minimum Requirements. All activ- ities necessitating a clearing or grading permit and all utility projects consisting of more than 500 lineal feet of trench excavation shall be required to control erosion and sediment dur- ing construction and to permanently stabilize. exposed soil resulting from construction. Projects involving a critical area may also be required to comply with any combination of the ESC minimum requirements. Compliance will be demonstrated through the implementa- tion of an approved ESC plan. Guidelines for preparing ESC plans areprovided in the+man- ual. The plan must address the following requirements: l: ESC Minimum Requirement - Con- siruction Access 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 thoroughly at the end of each day. Sediment shall be removed from roads by shoveling or sweeping and be trans- ported to a controlled sediment disposal area within 24 hours. Street washing shall be allowed only after sediment is removed in this manner. 2. ESC Minimum Requirement - Stabi- lization of Exposed Areas. 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. All BMPs shall be selected, designed,. and main- tained in accordance with the manual. The exposed soils shall be stabilized according to an approved timetable. (Typically, no soils shall remain exposed for more than two days from October 1 through April 30 and no more than seven days from May 1 through Septem- ber 30). 3. ESC Minimum Requirement - Pro- tection of Adjacent Properties. Adjacent prop- erties shall be protected from sediment deposition by appropriate use of vegetative buffer strips, sediment barriers or filters, dikes or mulching, or by a combination of these measures and other appropriate BMPs. 4. ESC Minimum Requirement - Main- tenance. All erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be regularly inspected and main- tained by the owner to ensure continued per- formance of their intended function. All maintenance and repair shall be conducted in accordance with the manual. . 5. ESC Minimum Requirement - Other BMPsw As required by the city, other appropri- ate BMPs to mitigate the effects of increased runoff shall be applied. 6. Erosion and Sediment Control Requirement - Underground Utility Construc- tion. The construction of underground utility lines shall specifically address the following: . a. Erosion control for excavated and stockpiled materials, b. The placement of excavated mate- rial where consistent with safety and 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 mainte- nance. 7. Additional ESC Minimum Require- ments for Larger Developments. All new development and redevelopment that includes 'land disturbing activities of greater than, or equal to, one acre in addition to meeting the minimum requirements set forth above shall comply with ESC requirements listed below... 8. ESC Minimum Requirement - Delin- eate Clearing and Easement Limits. In the field, mark clearing limits and/or any ease- ments, setbacks, sensitive/critical areas and the buffers, trees and drainage courses. 9. ESC Minimum Requirement - Sedi- ment Trapping. Prior to leaving the site,. storm water runoff shall pass through a sediment pond or sediment trap, or other appropriate BMPs. Sediment ponds and traps, perimeter dikes, sediment barriers, and other BMPs intended to trap sediment on -site shall be con- structed as a first step in grading. These BMPs shall be functional before land disturbing activ- ities take place. Earthen structures, such as dams, dikes, and diversions shall be seeded and mulched according to an approved timetable. FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL 2" x 4" DOUGLAS 2" x 2" x 14 GA. WWF FIR OR EQUAL STAKED AND ENTRENCHED STRAW BALE PROVIDE 3/4" - 1-1/2" BINDING WIRE COMPACTED SOIL TP WASHED GRAVEL BACKFILLIN TRENCH AND ON BOTH OR TWINE PREVENT PIPING SIDES OF FILTER FENCE SEDIMENT LADEN FABRIC ON THE SURFACE FILTEREDRUNOFF ow RUNOFF RUNOFF it • u NOTES: MAINTENANCE PLACE 12" OF 3/4" - 1-1/2" WASHED ROCK OR PEA GRAVEL ON BOTH SIDES OF THE FENCE TO * BALES SHALL BE STAKED WITH REPAR OR WOODEN STAKES, 2 STAKES CREATE A BEVEL SHAPE. MINIMUM PER BALE. * STRAW BALE BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPECTED IMMEDIATELY'AFTER EACH FABRIC SHALL COVER BOTTOM OF 8" x 12" TRENCH RUNOFF -PRODUCING RAINFALL AND AT LEAST DAILY DURING PROLONGED AND EXTEND BEYOND THE LIMITS OF THE GRAVEL RAINFALL. IN ORDER TO MAINTAIN AN EXCESS OVERLAP OF 2" MINIMUM AS SHOWfy. * CLOSE ATTENTION SHALL BE PAID TO THE REPAIR OF DAMAGED BALES, R SILT FENCING END RUNS, AND UNDERCUTTING BENEATH BALES. co • NECESSARY REPAIRS TO BARRIERS OR REPLACEMENT OF BALES SHAL4 BE OPENINGS EQUAL TO ACCOMPLISHED PROMPTLY. USDA SIEVE SIZE 70 * SEDIMENT DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED AFTER EACH RUNOFF -PRODUCING RAINFALL. THEY MUST BE REMOVED WHEN THE LEVEL OF DEPOSITION Ndifix REACHES APPROXIMA7LY ONE-HALF THE HEIQHT OF THE BARRIER. I 1 11 1 1 ANY TEMPORARY DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFTER THE STRAW BALE I I I I I I BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO ..� THE EXIS77NG GRADE, .PREPARED AND SEEDED. 11 I( I I N * ALL TEMPORARY AND PERMANENT' EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL, PRACTICES SHALL BE MAINTAINED AND REPAIRED AS NEEDED TO ASSURE CONNUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENAN ANDnREPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE W1TH AN APPROVED CE R MANUAL. II II II II a ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL MEASURES SHALL BE REMOVED WITHIN 30 DAYS AFTER FINAL SITE STABILIZATION IS ACHIEVED U u u BURY BOTTOM OF MATERIAL OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY BMPs ARE NO LONGER NEEDED. TRAPPED 4'-O" TYP, IN 8" x i2" TRENCH SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE DISTURBED SOIL 6' AREAS RESULTING FROM REMOVAL MAU BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED. -0 MAX. HAY BALE DETAIL_ SILT FENCE DETAIL NOT TO SCALE NOT TO SCALE 0 L HAY BALES TO BE PLACED ON SITE AS DEEMED NECESSARY I , �I.�•. I BY CONTRACTOR TO CONTROL RUNOFF AND ANY ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO E ACCEPI'I� p ! TIGHT�,INE CHANNELIZED FLOWS. BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS gDR iVIATERIAL 35 WATER & SEWER S i 40 INSPECTIONS REQ'D F810 MNCOR CALL 425-771-0220 EXT.1326 EROSION CONTROL NOTES: INSPECTION NOTE: CALL THE CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTION LINE 1. DURING CONSTRUCTION, STRAW OR OTHER MATERIAL TO COVER (425-771-0220 ext. 1326), 24 HOURS IN ADVANCE FOR EXPOSED EARTH SHALL BE ON LOCATION AND READY TO USE. IF THE ALL ENGINEERING INSPECTIONS. NEXT WEATHER DAY FORECAST IS RAIN, THE SITE SHALL BE COVERED AT THE END OF THE DAY. THE SI-'TE-SHALL BE COVERED IF ROAD RESTORATION NOTE: THE NEXT DAY IS A NON -WORKING DAY. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE REQUIRED TO RESTORE 2. SOIL STOCKPILES ARE TO COVERED WITH VISQUEEN WITHIN 24 HRS. OR OVERLAY 74TH PL. S.W. AS DETERMINED BY THE CITY INSPECTOR IF DAMAGED DURING CONSTRUCTION. 3. IMMEDIATELY FOLLWING FINISH GRADING FINAL LANDSCAPING IS TO BE INSTALLED OR HYDROSEED OR MULCH TO AREAS OF EXPOSED EARTH. APPROVED AS NOTED BY ENGINEERING Date: �q U3 'TEMPORARYENT RANON E REQUIRED PREPARED BY: DONNA L. BRESKE, P.E. 1013 6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD. SNOHOMISH, WA 98290 PHONE: 425-334-9980 FAX: 425-334-7380 REV 3 , I?ESpoNr.� -nj e- rry e4M Prz 117S s m-e `7'-14 - 03 / Der rz� 7-z1 REV 27RESFoNDRO Pfi?'_f) R�1 Y -1: IZESPbNO T-O CITY COMMENTS pRN) E RO a i�i Cv I i�OL PLAN SEWER 4 WAIT I" O TOM LIN H1LLN/I DA-rE:10-.22-02 SCALE: I"=ZY SHEET � 0� y ,� i' �,. 4:., TOP OF O RADE "Ll' + 181 I TYP I GILL CEO -GRID RE I NFORGEMENT (TYP) . 2200 LB/FT (ALLOHABLE) SEE ER-45gq (APPENDIX A< - GALGULAT1ON5) � > 320 � Gi /Gd = OA0 111-11 (TYP) RETAINED SOIL ---- RE I NFORGED SOIL NONHOYEN OEOTEXTILE FILTER FABRI G KEYSTONE STANDARD UNIT ts- I r- ORADE BELOH N UN -RE I NFORGED GONGRETE OR CRUSHED STONE LEVELINO PAD 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC, PIPE PLAGE HOLES DOHNHARD T P I GAL+ BL-OGK HALL_ THIS DETAIL 15 APPLIGABLE TO HALL HE I CHT UP TO cf. (REFER TO APPENDIX A (GALGULATI ON5) FOR INSTALLATION STANDARDS Wall Height (ft) "L" 9 8 ft - 1 in 8 7 ft - 2 in 7 6 ft - 4 in 6 5 ft - 5 in 5 4 ft - 6 in 4 3 ft - 7 in wr J J J d] W � wLo U In U z 0 z w U E- = Q z � � p O o� d �36923 SSI�NAL •�'�a,• EXPIRES 01/09/05 CUSTOM DESIGN & 1 It ENGINEERING, INC. WWW.CDENGR.COM MUKILTEO WA (425)343-7517 • 17" 'U'll V V P FTE-_ 97, ------- --- ... .. ..... V------- - --- /S9/_ Om Cie - et 1 . ...... .... ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I PWR POLE RIGHT_OF_WAY `� CONC PVMT I� PWR POLE I a ` .10" °o 0 H u IL DROP GARAGE 0 a ASPHALT pVMT ® a` #15927 N o \ O YARO TA-E /f � EE 4 .RAIN 96 J w WTR VLV / DGE OF GRAVELG(TYP) m f ONC PVMT Q 3 (DGRAVEL ROAD � O m EDGE OF GRAVEL (TY GRAVEL ROA 0 I RIG _ _ P Q i OF -WAY 9 W f 1" 20' FOR COMPLETE HORIZONTAL CONTROL, REFERENCE RECORD OF SURVEY BY THIS FIRM DATED 5/30/01. MAP FILE 6500_1RS. VERTICAL DATUM VERTICAL DATUM - CITY OF EDMONDS SEWER MAP, SHEET 17 C OF E. FILE 01-82-069, APR 83. CL IE OF SS MH #45 (APPROX 120' EAST OF INT 74TH & MEADOWDALE). ELEV = 110.61 SITE BENCHMARK (BM) - NORTHEAST CORNER OF CONCRETE SLAB/HOUSING FOR SANITARY SEWER CLEANOUT (SS C/O), 21' SOUTHWESTERLY OF SOUTHWEST CORNER OF PARCEL 'A'. ELEV = 93.00 LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS PARCEL A: 16" CMP CULVERT IE 89.0 N \ SMALL PUMP ASPHALT pVMT nl \'�- D II 9q 90 _ - \ 4 74 H 92 P i8l, CMP CULVERT \ _lukrMpROVED) IE 91.2 All that portion of Tract 33, MEADOWDALE BEACH SUPPLEMENTAL PLAT, according to the plat thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats. Page 42, in Snohomish County, Washington, described as follows: Beginning at the Northwest corner of said Tract 33; thence East along the North line of said Tract 220.81 feet: thence South in a straight line to a point on the South line of said Tract, which is 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; thence Northerly along Westerly line of said Tract 33 to point of beginning. 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 corner 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 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. THE DRAWING SHOWN HEREON DOES NOT NECESSARILY CONTAIN ALL OF THE INFORMATION OBTAINED OR DEVELOPED BY THE SURVEYOR IN HIS FIELD WORK, OFFICE WORK, OR RESEARCH. /yOSEpN k� 0V/ C & C SURVEYING_ 4509 243rd Place S.W. Mountlake Terrace, WA 98043 (425)673-7502 (206)523-1654 SS C/0 A / SITE BIN M E [2] CTNW00D UTILITY TABLE STRUCTURE RIM INVERT SS MH A 99.0 12" S 86.6 AL 12" N 86.9 12" W 84.2 SS C/O A STUB NOT ACCESSIBLE ------ - -- (45' BEND BEFORE IE) W CB A 105.9 24" E 97.2 • 24" W 96.8 V 12" S 98.1 CB B 154.7 B" W 151.5 CB C 123.6 12" W 119.7 8 E 119.6 " [3] CB 0 117.0 12" W 112.9 12" E 113.2 CB E 94.4 12" W 86.8 12" E 86.9 CHAIN FENCE C G = LIMIT OF 10' WIDE STORM SEWER ESMT, AF# 8309300219 (AS BUILT) - F 1 (1 /� WIRE FENCE 94 _ - II �-- � • - �- I I CBE II - 98 - 94 96 I [3] AL 1 - Mph 1 _" - - 96 100-/ 98 - ,1 / 0 • 44 i _� SS- MH f1 8 � 102 [4] / E 12 / '�-- 10`�_ i IM - 10 - - - 10 II - 1p6 WAY 10 4 - - D 10 4 - 102 - - 11 � _ •�� 2 1 _ 1 _ i / 7 ALDER 10 ALO AIDE '� _ - - I 9� I AL 8 8 / • / 1 // 106 - 0 1 1 BEQO 6 -AL R 8 10 8 - A 14 I I / / 1,6 E 1 _ DER 20 1 - ALDE - 0 / RIGHT-OF-- W 4 ERL AY ER 14 qq o / ALD 12 L R I- -�_ -20 [ ] MAPLE 14 4 2 -- / AL E 1 A R Ln YM Fit2E 4 0 R 14 II - 1 - - 0 % R 4 LD I -- �- % 12 ALDER 1 42 R 1 ALD / ALDER 1�L ER 18 I / / AL16 1 A R 1 ALD 1 ER 16 I D R 1 h A 0 A 0 B E� ALDER 12 LDE ALDER 14 h 1 120 ALDER 14 A D 12 � 1 ALD R 12 R 14 AL ER 6 ER 2 / I \ I A DER 12 / 1 ,22 1 ALDER N ALDER 4 LDE / l _ A - -- - � ER 1 ALDER 6• o ALD 1 ] R T2 AR 8 ALDER 8 LDER 10 ALD R 12 to 6 / N \• / ALDE 1 �\• 12 I co �• ALDER 16 A E / " 5m� AALDER LD R 8 A� R I / m Di fAPi ` BUFFER / 1 ALDER CV S�T A ALDER ti 0, /� Q B ICU`12 � • �• Ch' •1 / '\`• (U1 122 BUFG •1,,,.n...•G�"".....�"/ I nil TOE Q/ \ , � � � •t•�, ' 22 � �., FR 1 fir" ,�' [4 A Et2§2 Cc..� ALD 14 .,...... �'� / / • - L AL R R LDER 4126 •1�" 12 0 / ° \ \ �30 MAPL-E---3-&- 0 126 - �P � ` \ \13.1 126 14 1`39 1 \ 132 - \ �-- 1 0 1.10 �\ 1qq \\ \ \\ � ` - AL 16 92 1 . [ M 132 134 148 140 6 1 -1136 // 1 .114 \ A 5 \ 15 1 6 - 1A6 148 - 1qB 15A ✓ 166 62 1S \ �- 50 - - �- - -�0 \ - - 152 .. / - - 156 � �- - - 158 - - - ��--' 160 \�\ �60 - - - - - _ - 160 -- - - 164 - - - - - 116 166 166 -•-- �_ - - - 168 170�- 172 - TOPOGRAPHY SURVEY FOR MICHEL CONSTRUCTION PORTION OF TRACTS 32 & 33, MEADOWDALE SUPP. SCALE: 1" = 20' DATE: 9/27/02 DRAWN BY: JJH PROJECT MAP FILE: 6500 3TP No. 1 Date 1 8v 1 Revision RE'AICSIVED DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER R CEIv t) DEC 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER PROD NO. 6500.3 SHEET i OF l5"ii5 7���� RE I VE, D D5c 12 2002 PERMIT COUNTER FILE