Loading...
16123 MEADOWDALE RD.PDF16123 MEADOWDALE RD )CV-11,4 TAX.ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 005/ 3-30Z ,5-0 2 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: c,�7# cl'7i07/6oso 2 CRITICAL AREAS: Z / DETERMINATION: ❑ Conditional Waiver Study Required ❑ Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: J PARKING AGREEMENTS DA EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:—! JZ SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: T— / SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: G-! SHORT PLAT FILE: —`/ LOT: 3 BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: [,/2- ! %Z ,JCL /,3 VlI/o✓ 7�lt1 71&2 Colqpl21C AkUf/LeCond L:\TEMKDSTs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc t � • STREET Mt.. ,sal J RECEIVED MAY - 2 1997 2-6 Col. C'I PERMIT COUNTER h gn I X! 04 fl) 4l— r I (o 3 APPROVED BY PLANNING eo v LOT 5 CITY OF EDIA(�IC5 5 HO RT PLAT N 2 1 A5 RKIDRDED UNDER. K&CORDIWG NQ 9ZO33,co33 ZECORD; OF 5I0140W'--,H' COL)Wr/ WA-65HIG1W coNTAIq I oc. 2 o 0412. `�. FT. 0.4G ACRES PLAH E SITS REGI R)p YOV �EW G i OL!; },1. IM EADOW PA' E RID, E D j,,! 0 W,6,, Or--�!--ER ADAMSON WASHINGTON PLANNING DATA NAME: L0a Ymj% SITE ADDRESS: ) / l N. M O- DATE: 3/(1/9 7 ZONING: hS - PLAN CHK#: i 7 - 50 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SF 9-les"A", CORNER LOT No (Yes/No) SETBACKS: -hw 3s , STREET FILE Required Setbacks: Front: 25' Left Side: Right Side: to. r Rear: 25' Actual Setbacks: Front: I Z-7, Left Side: o' Right Side: 0' Rear: zS' Street map checked for additional setback required? No (Yes/No LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED N (Y/N) LOT COVERAGE: 11��ot 9G Maximum Allowed: 3�°7 Actual: o+e BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed:_ 2S' Actual Height: ZS' Datum Point: sA,4r —�_Datum Elevation: 2­69, 62' A.D.U. CREATED?: b, M, Z !mac t�s No 6w s g vim, , ►� ve d,v,,� _,�.. t,ot�' ki SUBDIVISION: 6'13- 91 5-M4 s ram,�G�/�,P4�• 1AA CRITICAL AREAS #: ' �4 , Z2� n- SEPA DETERMINATION 4�w'I Se -%.A 0,,VS �b L LOT AREA: 20 0 4 2- OTHER:6e Plan Review By: 0 • 3 S4' d V eo f 3$= Z3o 33, /W3fCl NO Md mtn7 a� 6� � th 0�,� S/�� � �J P laf s� Af o n 5 t S.7 r. D. RECElVED f r,y�., 4 e P Y 6 T77 - F' 4� n OEC 01 .199 PERMIT COUAITM : 90-199 City of Edmonds Critical Areas. Checklist The Critical Areas Checklist contained on and submit it to the City. The (Sty will this form is to be filled out by any person review the checklist, make a precursory site preparing a Development Permit =;. visit, and make a determination of the Application for the City of Edmonds prior subsequent steps necessary to complete a to his/her submittal of a`devclopmeiat development permit application. permit to the City. ' :`i',a 5 i .. "�;' :i:i�- .'.':•7i;. .7 .. L �i: ail" ., .. .. _ .:'s <z- •.' With a signed copy of this form; the--, The purpose of the Checklist is to enable :' ' : ' : ' ,applicant should also submit a vicinity City staff to determine whether any ._, • .. . map . or plot plan for uidividual lots of the parcel potential Critical Areas are or may be ' with enough detail that City staff can find present on the subject property. The' and•identify the subject-panoel(s).,: In :` information needed to completethe___,T`� addition,.theapplicantshalt:include_ Checklist should be easii y available from - M other pertinent information (eg. site observations of the site or data available at _.. ,... _ . plan, topography =cap; etc:) or studies in City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, - xi r;, ; conjunction with this Cheddistto"assist- ' or soil 'surveys). staff in completing their proixninaU ' . y , assessment of the site. An applicant, -or his/her r' • t itiv .._ •, . -'- must fill out -the checklist,, sign"arid date iF; h.;;vo _.•_ ._. - _ �'.�.:",` t r n; ,,>A:1 .r , I,havecompleted.the .,attadwdCritical, Area •Checklist,and'att�est-that•the answers provided'&Ce T7 factual~, ,to_the.best of.my,knowledge (fill' out the�appwpriate column,below): . Ow / Ap licant: � -._. .i ���... ` APPhcarrt Representative: .,w.', �./I'' /rY�!////�^�/ ��/!! ���✓V ��': 1. ,:.S v+r ...:'/r:'.i::=1 '9%i:i ..-"F•.. '�#'sae si. a"r1 p•i:: .,. -. - '_fir [' .i.. Name AL( &0 1 7,74? — Street Address r „• h;;_ . Street Address ity, tee ZIP �gnature Gty, State, Z[P Phone Signature ,� Date . CA FILE NO. -Z;""1 Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology,/vegetation) 1. Site Addiess/I�ocation: /y 2. Property Tax Acoount`Number.- C) [ _Y3 0 00 0 Soo 3 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): Z !Z 4. Is this site currently developed? _yes; no. If yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. I/ 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: Q _ ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the yeah . 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.. 9. Site contains a - ek or an area where water flows acom the grounds surface? Flows are -year- round.? Flows are seasonal? _ IVO (What time of year's ). a 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow shrubs , mixed ,"' urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. '7 7-d Obvious wetland is present on site:: For City Staff Use b. Site is Zoned? R S • 12 Y .� .� ;,�" • ; , : . 2: SCS mapped soil type(s)? 3 J.S �Ey` 'f �'sc2�✓�c/ 2. :•�: 3s =.>• •"jWalaad: inventory or C.A. map:indicates wCtland present on site?_'_ d4 v t atrcal teasinventory or C.A:'map indicates Critical Area on site? :,..G 5 'landslide hazard.arra? (Site wrthu•desrgnatedearth subsidence ^° a6 Y rid esignated oa the Environcue6ta11}rSensitive AmasMap'? `— �� + DETERM MATION WAIVER* evil by',- `'yDD fa•vi r.. _ � Y CONDMONAL�IA1'VEIt h" } t ry www"ZM STP777 F.,, ! City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Howard Stansburn Determination #: [CA-94-229 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 16123 N. Meadowdale Rd Property Tax Acct #: 5133 000 050 03 Project Description: non -project specific A site inspection of the property has revealed a steep slope which may be as steep or steeper than 30% and there is more than 20 feet of vertical elevation gain. Based on the above findings, it is determined that there is potential for critical areas on or adjacent to the site. A Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the boundaries of the potential critical area, its buffers and setbacks. A licensed surveyor must create a topographic map of the site which indicates all areas which slope 30% or more and have a vertical gain of 20 feet or more within the 30% slopes. The map must also show the location of the buffer associated with the steep slope. All critical area studies shall be performed as three party agreements with the city selecting the consultant and the property" owner or applicant paying the fees. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Area or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Kirk Vinish Name le— sllgnaturq��/ December 9. 1994 Date RECEIVED 0 •U l ' F'�'1 i%�. F'=� (1 �. �I �j'_ � I Y may, MAY - 2 1997 City of Edmonds [,IAA 1 ,� 1997 PERMIT COUNTER Critical Areas Determination G'STRFF � �.E Applicant: John and Lynne Young Determination #: CA-94-229 Project Name: New Single -Family Permit Number: Residence Site Location: ' 16123 N. Meadowdale Property Tax Acct #: 5133 000 050 03 Road Project Description Construct New Single -Family Residence 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. The house shall be constructed in the exact location shown on Site Plan by Architects Northwest, dated February 19, 1996. 2. The house shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the February 16, 1993 Geotech Report and the July 16, 1996 Dennis Bruce Report and on -site inspections by Dennis Bruce. 3. The house shall be constructed in compliance with the City of Edmonds approved plans and code requirements. 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 Chapter 20.15B.150 (B) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Meg Gruwell /� -, /%'7/31/96 — Name Sign re Date 00 _9►7w11 S TA NDAVD DRAINAGE DETEN 74N SYSTEM WORKSHEET J 6IAN 4 LvWN OWNER CIO Q AJ (r CALC By: T).F-aA�� �1�y uc.F- . PL `�... 612 r� , MEADOW D,1-,LE P_ 00 ADDRESS PHONE: �S y b " `t Z ! � �C�vkoA (jia Ot-11-01(O CL DATE: *****DESIGNDATA***** IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA PIPE LG ORIFICE DETENTION PIPE LENGTH LOCKING LID <TYPICAL) FINISHED G MINIMUM cL EE TIGHTLI E MEASIUREDEfROMCfOP OF CONC BOX OR RISER .SX TO 1% SLOPE 0 OUTLET OUTLET CONTROL 9MIN. UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFICE CONTROL CATCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION r �f 2'X2'X6',DEEP, 4-6' SPACES OR EQUAL t I�.J i t J! FROM CONTROL CB 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK EXISTING GRADE ivf FROM CONTROL OUTLET WASHED ROCK OUTFLOW TRENCH, MIN 10' LdNG. PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL PERF PIPE W/ END CAPS TRENCH SHALL BE LINED WITH MIRAFI PRIOR TO PLACEMENT OF WASHED DRAIN ROCK R/PRAP OUTLET RUNOFF SPREADER. TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED YO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: 1 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection — APPROVED BY before backfilling and for final inspections. 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed DATE out and removed from the catch bas: pis to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be kept open at all times. 6 , , 0 . 0 Table 1 — Detention Pipe Sizes Impermeable Required Area Sq. Ft. Vol Cu Ft 2000 50 2500 62 3000 75 3500 87 4000 100 4500 112 5000 125. Note: Allowable Pipe Materials: Impermeable Area Sq. Ft. 2000;-6f, 2500 , 3000 3500 4000 4500 5000 Pipe Diameter 15" 18" 24" 30" 40 28 16 10 50 35 20 13 60 42 24 15 Required pipe 70 49 28 18 length in feet 80 56 32 21 90 63 36 23 100 70 40 25 Reinforced Concrete Aluminized Steel Aluminum CMP Asphalt Coated N-12 ADS (Not permitted on roads) Table 2 — Outlet Orifice Sizes Outlet Orifice Diameter (Inches) 5/8 5/8 3/4 3/4 7/8 7/8 7/8 Table 3 — Rectangular Catch Basin Requirements Detention Max. size Catch Basin pipe diameter knockout Type < 18" i20" Type I, CB 15 18" to 24" 26" Type IL, CB 16 24" to 36" 36" Type II, CB 19 19 (48" Basin) 1 36" to 42" 42" Type II, CB 19 19 (54" Basin) *Source: Assoc. Sand & Gravel Co. Standards 5 Revised 3/16/95 M �` S Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer July 16, 1996 City of Edmonds 250 5th Avenue N. Edmonds, WA 98020 1V PERW 00UN-i'F, Attn: Building Department Subject: Geotechnical Assessment 16123 N. Meadowdale Road Proposed John & Lynne Young Residence Lot #3, Short Plat #5-13-91 "to 00&) � This engineering. report presents the results of a geotechnical assessment of 16123 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, Washington. This lot is currently not developed and is proposed to have a single family residence situated similar to the existing homes in the area. References: Project Plans by Architects Northwest dated May 29, 1996 • Topographic Site Plan by Continental Engineering dated February 19, 1996 • Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants dated Feb. 16, 1993 for Lot #3 Short Plat #5-13-91 • Site Photographs Background: This property consists of approximately 0.46 acres on the north side of N. Meadowdale Road. This lot has not been developed, but is adjacent to other existing residences. The proposed building location is on the essentially flat part of the lot. The. extreme rear (north/northeast) portion of the lot contains gentle slopes (approximately 7(H):1(V) that contain mature trees. No grading or construction is proposed on or near the rear slopes. The garage and driveway will be constructed furthest to the rear on slopes of 10 percent. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL 17814 8th Ave. N.W. • Seattle, Washington 98177 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 , 7 rf 0 * 0 r Assessment: A complete geotechnical engineering study was performed for 'this lot by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated February 16, 1993. The recommendations of this study concluded "...construction of a house on conventional foundations on this lot is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint... Localized slope failure on or near this lot is not anticipated and it is our opinion that no special construction techniques are required for the construction of this house." After performing additional geotechnical investigation sin June and July of 1996... this engineer agrees. This engineer has discussed the findings of the February 16, 1993 Geotech Consultants, Inc. report with James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. and expressed concurrence with the conclusion. Geotech Consultants agreed to having D. Bruce, P.E. follow through on this project with the permit/construction phase of the Young's residence. Conclusion/Recommendations: The proposed Young single family residence i constructed in accordance' with the recommendations Geotech Report, on -site inspections by this engineer, Edmonds approved plans and requirements. Statement of Minimal Risk: s geotechnically viable when of the February 16, 1993 and compliance with City of, The plans and specifications submitted to City of Edmonds have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal. 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 2 ,.� than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the 1 situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. DMB:njt EXPIRES 12/23/ 1'( g Sincerely, &A -A,, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer i'6 3 CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Nocthup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747.5618 FAX 747-8561 � STREFT Interwest Savings Bank 800 Southwest 152nd Street Seattle, Washington 98166 Attention: Mark Willis rol-E +`0 February 1 6 , 1993 �p JN 93036 s Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Lot , Short Plat No. S-13-91 161XX North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Willis: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for Lot 3 of Short Plat No'. S-13-91 located on the north side of Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site surface and subsurface conditions and to provide general earthwork recommendations and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. The work was authorized -by your acceptance of our proposal, P-9964 dated February 1, 1993. Three test pits were excavated for this study. Based on these test pits, there are competent soils near the ground surface, and it is our opinion that construction of a house on conventional foundations on this lot is feasible from a geotechni cal engineering viewpoint. The site is in an area identified as part of the Meadowdale Slide. If the slide were to be reactivated, it is likely that a large block failure would occur.. Localized slope failure on or near this.lot is not anticipated, and it is our opinion that no special construction techniques are required for the construction of this house. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or if we can be of further assistance during the design phase of this project. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Burton R. Holt, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer Fc 1�07) ? °q�7 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY LOT 3, SHORT PLAT NO. S-13-91 161XX NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for Lot 3 of Short Plat No. 5- 13-91 located in the 16100 block of North Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the site is illustrated on the vicinity Map, Plate 1. We were provided with a Site Survey of the short plat prepared by Group Four, Inc. which provided the dimensions of the lot and located nearby existing structures. Development of the property is in the planning stage, therefore, detailed plans were not made available to us. Based on conversations with Mark Willis,, we anticipate that the lot will be developed with a single-family residence constructed on the northern portion of the property. Foundation, cuts, fills or final site grades were not determined at the time this report, was presented. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE Lot 3 is an irregular -shaped parcel and is part of the four - lot Short Plat No. S-13-91 located on the north side of North Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The undeveloped lot is bordered on the north by undeveloped property, to the southeast by two single-family residences (on Lots 1 and 4 of the short plat), to the south by North Meadowdale Road, and to the west by an existing single -family -residence. A 20-foot- wide driveway easement extends along the southeastern boundary of the lot providing access to Lot 2 from Meadowdale Road. The northeastern portion of the parcel slopes moderately. to the southwest at an approximate 30 percent inclination, while the central and southern portions of the lot are essentially flat. The southern portion of the lot's surface has been altered by the addition of up to.4 feet of fill. vegetation on the property consists of native grasses and weeds with blackberry• bushes along the western property boundary. We observed no surface or subsurface indications of slope instability on the lot during our field work. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 2 Surface water drainage on the property and surrounding properties is to the north and west. A water course flows northwest through the northern portion of Lot 4 and empties into a catch basin located near the driveway easement to the east of the subject lot. From the catch basin, a storm drain extends northwest through the central portion of Lot 3, to a second catch basin located on the northern boundary of the lot, and on to the adjacent property to the north. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored.with three test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the proposed construction and.required design criteria, site topography and access, subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on February 10, 1993 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Excavating. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation.process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 4. Test Pit 1 encountered 3.5 feet of topsoil and loose sand overlying medium -dense, gravelly sand. Test Pit 2 encountered 4 feet of topsoil and loose sand overlying medium -dense, gravelly sand. Underlying the gravelly sand at a beginning depth of 9.5 feet, Test Pit 2 encountered medium -dense silt. Test Pit 3 encountered 4 feet of loose fill and old topsoil overlying medium -dense, gravelly sand. Underlying the gravelly sand at a beginning depth of 6.5 feet, Test Pit 3 encountered dense silt and silty sand. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual and subsurface conditions may vary between exploration locations. The relative densities and GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 3 moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage -was observed at a depth of 8 feet in Test Pits 1 and 2 during excavation. The test pits were left open only for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the upper gravelly, sand soils and the underlying silts. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that development of Lot 3 w.ith. a single- family residence is feasible from a geotechnical engineering perspective. The single-family residence can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on the medium -dense, gravelly sands or silts underlying the loose, near -surface soils. The existing fill in the southern portion of the lot should be completely removed from 'beneath the proposed structure. This could result in overexcavations of up to 4 feet to reach competent bearing soils. We understand that the residence may be constructed on the existing slope in the northern portion of the property. This could result in excavations of 8 feet or more along the north side of the structure. Our test pits encountered some caving of the upper gravelly sands especially at the level of groundwater seepage. Consequently, we recommend that temporary foundation excavations be sloped at a maximum inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) from the base of the excavation to the existing ground surface. It is important to adequately design for the control of the surface and subsurface groundwater flows. Control measures should be in place both during and after construction'of the home. These measures should include foundation drains. around the perimeter ofthe foundation. If the new residence is to be GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 4 constructed in close proximity of the existing storm sewer line, the line should be moved so that the flow from the existing water. course is diverted well away from the' new structure. Seepage into the foundation excavation is possible, and if encountered, construction dewatering will be required. If grading operations are performed in the drier summer months when the wet, gravelly sands can be air dried, these on -site soils will generally be suitable for use as structural and utility trench backfill. The existing fill and the silts that underlie the gravelly sands will generally not be suitable for use as structural fill. The Meadowdale area has been identified as an old landslide area. It is our opinion that development of this lot, if done in accordance with the recommendations in this report, will result in a structure that is as stable as any in the neighborhood, and the development will not adversely affect the stability of the existing slope or area. Geotech Consultants I.nc. should be given the opportunity to review plans and specifications as they are developed to verify site specific subsurface requirements are.met. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS A single-family residence can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium - dense, native soils or on structural fill placed above these native soils. See the later sub -section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL for recommendations regarding structural fill placement and compaction,beneath structures-. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The footing subgrade must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site. and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil- by hand. Some overexcavation may be .required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must beat least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and -the footing width. - For example, an GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 5 overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 3-foot- wide footing must be at least 5 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 two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot (psf). 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 s.ettlements on the order of less than one-half 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 relatively level, undisturbed soil or level structural fill must be placed around the outside of the foundation. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Design Parameter value Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Passive Earth Pressure -350 pcf Where:' (1) Pcf is pounds per cubic foot (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of the foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. 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 The building floor may be constructed as a slab -on -grade atop the native soils following removal of the existing fill and surface organics. The subgrade soils must be in a firm, non- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 6 yielding condition at the time of slab construction. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select imported structural fill. All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break layer consisting of a minimum four (4) inch thickness of free- draining•granular structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed later in PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier and to provide uniform support under the slab. 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: Design Parameter Value Active Earth Pressure* 40 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coeffi'cient of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: 1) Pcf is pounds per cubic foot 2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100) psf 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. The passive pressure given is appropriate only for the depth of level structural GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1593 Page 7 fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a factor of safety 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 pres-sures resulting from the equipment. Placement and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated equipment. Retaining Wall Backfill eackfi11 placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than five (5)ietcei*it 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 25 and 70 percent. Due to their silt content, if the native, gravelly sand soi 1 s are used as backf i 1 1, a drainage composite, such as Miradrain or Enkadrain, should be pl-aced against the retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected to the. foundation drain system. The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for the retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfill should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should,be.paved. -The sub- section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL contains recommendations regarding placement. and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 8 EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about four (4) feet. in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertically. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the native sand soils at the site would be classified as Type C. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than four (4) feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical).extending continuously between the top and bottom of the cut. The above recommended temporary slope inclination is based on' what has been successful at other sites having similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. These cut slopes should be backfilled or retained as soon as possible. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). _Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, 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 We recommend the use of footing.drains at the base of all footings and backfilled earth 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. 'A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 6. Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 8 feet in Test Pits 1 and 2 during our field work. Therefore, seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered should be drained away from the site. by use of drainage ditches, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 9 perforated pipe or 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. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the building should 'be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURA FILL We recommend that the building and pavement areas 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 need to support loads. Geotech Consultants, Inc. 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 used, 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: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • Interwest Savings Bank February 16, 1993 Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls Beneath pavements JN 93036 Page 10 Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 90 % 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). 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. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusion's and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils .encountered in the test pits are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are. significantly different from those observed in the explorations, or assumed to exist in the -excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can 'review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 11 The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward protection of only the structure from damage due to slope' movement. Landslides and soil movement can occur on steep slopes. At additional cost, we can provide recommendations for reducing the risk of future movement on the steep slopes, which could involve installation of subsurface drains or construction of costly retaining structures.. Alternatively, the owner can accept the possibility that some of the ground on and above the slope could be lost to slope movement over time. This report has been prepared for the 'exclusive use of Interwest Savings Bank and their representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures,except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of- the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes 'in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor. his GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank February 16, 1993 JN 93036 Page 12 employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1. Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Grain Size Analysis Plate 6 Footing Drain Detail Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Burton R. Holt, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer . F WAslf�l -' ! n Jtml t� FxF�F�Es g I 1.71 93 James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal. GEOTECH-CONSULTANTS, INC. ' a,> rl "I `—'+ QV JtV ' ,• �U, t't i7,t,1 rt f.� ... j------ r iSiST -7J� '� 1OTNl�s✓-J f - ',•., , =s % t i` •7 $�'SN .........»....,nY ..152N0 ST . SW� _ t 15?Nn z 'Ta 15 0 MCA C1 :. p a �1 r 1'l SW II53R ST 1,3R01 L 1)7n0 fl ).Y ) i I Q > l 1 Ail QS, I Z it ),Y 155f11 ST ' !'�• Q� I• 151iTH T (I $ t I _t158TH - T.•--�-IS�V •---- ��.i W` ' ~ %''; MF.IDUttOiIF ✓ �' ::� T •c,Tll :f , v, i • 1 !jF.1CN i i U IS71b Pl :%v :itV v •r F_ `T.I SBTHi 5•.v ; .' >1 !',t,(K ' ' SRSlI1, PL A a • I'. 1ST tY1'xtlt O ` j •Z-31YtSwJ 1� ..cBUGTON f ° 1 i I�r1TH _ ST_• .. } - - - - WHARF _ S c \ - � u t`+ • r � s KEEL E l y�iunnl - sw I - o ' ('� e^ i I 0�.:. u1\ft nl ,•+ '� _I I I aI �ti Itii`:T PL SAY COI, i Jv -'d %v. ,�, o i IuNo rlPt Sw i 1 In3Ti0 PL SYI. . �!•2' = 164TH li ST1r rr�aL SW ? a I i1fr1TH- I ST $W r a > a na SW Q I t rlt t RO �iilTl/0 Pt S wl:un vt - - J \: • r r-J;r,..; ,f l.: tWh, . M VE(i L'f Y= 1 4i y� �'ell�OJ,•J�t[ ` .I a �LISw i p W 168TH ST Q S '- tp ,I ATE i001vC) tlE t t iv, T 1 t •• f"4 ME_,•ONi I - e~ SI �At10 Q 't rNS' iG9i„ Ii;9T11 PL �SV; - - - -{•- •- -- - -• 1' _ .. coil,�- 1 O �Jr i ; <F 1 IAT. -/P` ? N' Sw 17oiN Pl Sw >' I , I et > I I sF itt• .V I ♦} I > �. 171ST i i, t1 > it. i17?NC ST SW I 72(`1 9 �P 177Nn ST 1 0 172NO `i •a i t 1 tf•(+ SvV F9 ST SW r i .,ur- InNO �rFr2 P� amLEL_2 9 , In S m C to J• I .� •Q I I. sw C h--- c', nvosty�a tP ti'm HC r �- ' L.-S)N Q S I S x s 1 e Sw 90 .* s+ srt :. '_- Z 3 Q e S 7A1ns - 17iTH ST sw I, t...r iI75f•/ I _ -5Tj 7 Y� I,•rn t S �1 Sr i - z i ® PO „•.1„•;rC PL 10 T i•D CC../I�SI b' 1 1 y T S S'N = SOUNT� 1 r Ir67r• •t S,2 a a i��� O v,,.. <• 1761,1 Pt SW 2 \ 1 L `� 1'W 1 �Nb t'-Un. r�L lv l Sw - s.'•...ER a ='I:1.� .rrr: = ��17HTII I ST Sw ' \� a t_y.c. ... - 117HTH Pl SW Q �- FY -' ,niiw ':a3 yr 17 Iit, I in).nw.i• = 179TH C ; 1� t Sw 3� ' 1 fQt.n/. i I . I r,l 1 I ~ Q PL SJ' , -. ' q`rY• Q I a (� 51 SW ;..a �,+ Q I ' Pt 1w Q a r 4 180TH � r ' yn l 1 lit) I N 120T1 -T`C 1 ^otEi 91[i: <T <w> $T^ 181ST PL St!< Z $W cr, \v > rl Stv I. fjJ r;LI/-y i 18t. f P W 1815T FQ� leis? P 1�. '� iB11 S !•� i 3 �,NO T a '�r.p� �+ PO Jr PL SW N'• t t^ Sw. �. 'BIND - ,G Sty I Sd :.. rwi.n.: > No PL. ` a,CR sr n7n ,� ^'• 182ND PSSW BJ I: a sw > 1133A0 PL `+ 1 rt w Y. y ? '�• = o S't"� -10 p'7 4 a ! Bi S 1®A tv'-" o> I j �� e > 18 fl0 PL SW ter]: is, 1p Sw'I-�y _ • C + v G d, nyt 3 a�% C� c _ , ° i '.n 5t� , Z SW 1 TN Pl r 5f 2 . rr : ` 1 1RSTH' ST IEitiH ST &ia • P� t o+ln a .11lC'�$l vrv't _� • �r�y .: r I,pr•..." # Q +. , tsl Q 2� �JI�,.•• y i :.ILS, vµ Y 185TH1- PL /R.il S'�Ha ' - > F 3 r' I7fiTH p n sr ' RO L / 3 z K 3 S 1B67H ST SW 186TH m ST SW 'Fs N,.I �r $ 2 , 11 T H T S (+ V •-^ � ' lO r 3 ,R^. '[ ; PI S W_ .�� I I r•}'� QV v 1- :'1 > - - 187THrsPt. Sw� - - �a fJ n' 18STH•SW �! i Q _ . z; ................ i TH W > fS L - _ > '�'0 PENNY LN 1 TH PL S'N SII19T)i ST LYNNOILE.'• 1891 .PL SW s = a P5 1LOfH Q rt 1 C /y... } r 1g9TH Y.�ti 9, P 3 R i W .Z a z MOTH T S.Y It TH t50T}1 8 Sr t.v t TH K 191ST 191ST ST SI, MM• 191�. O 1915T S 511 191ST PC SW^� i s' 191ST We pc'.:, �3::- P SW t _� = t91St STISw ST CI NY vt 915 > C I92N0 T C' F' �< ST SW .:.o,lf'z ivr I. r ST SW 12NO ST SW 19:ND CN ti:r.tt .v t 5 -e '�r�•S/ 6N Q 2 j► - /0` 192NO ST SW P.tRS I � >i � y' PL � SW 191ND , ,f9 a J.__. t2NO 3� Pl•. '. >IB)Ho Pt Sw wv SCRIBER Z 193R0 a > `a UB 9JH0 PI 193A P < 1Y7a S-Ts W d ; 7 ~ a > - 19aTH Sr SW JJ !(S .�• PL jW 1RaTN 9T _r->-•-- 11'6tN st sw 3 =;�svv�11-11"-] 39 .196TH� LS > � 1 LAXi L I •jyrll Yt .. ` 1 > NEIN! n Y y Sw J `� J N t a I ,n•�p. y 1 • PAlit.. .• [� I 1 111 T = -r - -WqO D _ Pl n r.`.L �� _ Si S.,, Q , m > . .. ?.TO rm - .. .. I ,rv, T. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS .i • VICINITY MAP 161 XX N. MEADOWDALE RD. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No. + OoN: L""'O gl.r Pole T. 93036 FEB 1993 CATCH BASIN 0 �n TP-1 G T P - 2 3 \2 �m i \ TP-3 \ .� "XCATO BASI S�Cw �P 4 LEGEND: ® APPROXIMATE- TEST PIT LOCATIONS GEOTECH CONSULTANTS J y a SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 161 XX N. MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON J60 No. Oam- PIoli . 93036 FEB 1993 2 0 TEST PIT 1 ell �° G0� Elevation 0 USCS Description Topsoil Brown to light gray, slightly silty, medium SAND, very moist, 12.1 loose, some gravel. -becomes medium -dense at 3.5 feet 5 SP -rust stained lenses -becomes wet 19.8 10 Gray to dark amy, slightly silty, gravelly, medium SAND, wet, medium- SP dense. Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade on 2-10-93. 1$ Groundwater seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation. Slight caving at 8 feet. I 5 �``tl G USCS Topsoil TEST PIT 2 Elevation Description I I Brown, slightly mhtly silty, tine to coarse grained, gravelly SAND, wet, loose 12.3 -becoes medium -dense I SP 10 29.9 Ml_ I Gray, nonplastic SILT, some sand, very moist, medium -dense -becomes dense Tfm Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade on 2-10-93. 15 Groundwater seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation Slight caving at 8 feet. GEOTECH C ()N, ULTANTS. INC. TEST PIT LOGS 161XX N. MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 993036 FES 1993 BRH 3 U .5 TEST PIT 3 e GO USCS Description Elevation 30.6 Brown, slightly silty, gravelly, medium SAND, moist, loose till (fill) occasional organics and asphalt -becomes blue -Gray, silty, Gravelly sand, moist, loose (till) occasional organics and asphalt debris. old topsoil LS_PJJ Brown, slightly silty, gravelly, medium SAND, vcry moist, medium - dense. Blue -gray, nonplastic SILT, some sand, very moist, dense. 10 is.s II: Sm II Blue -Gray, silty, tine SAND, trace gravel, very moist, dense. 15 Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade on 2-10-93. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. No cavinG. GEOTECH C ONSUTA'nNTS. INC:. TEST PIT LOGS 161 XX N. MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS, WA Job No: Date: Logged by: Plate: 993036 FEB 1993 BRH 4 )lope hack/a/ owoy /,om loundotion. --, rIGHTL INE ROOF DRAIN Do not Connect /0 tooling droin. 11ACKFIL L See /ex/ /or �epu�remenls. scae VAPOR 8ARR/ER _ WASHED ROCK —�� ° ,' o' �� •� / L .. - I ` 4 min. 6 min. _ ' e -T \ FREE- DRA/NING NONWOVEN GEOTEXr/LE SAND/GRAVEL FIL rER FABRIC �-- 4" PERFORATED HARD PVC P1PE Inver/ 01 /eosl os low os /00lin9 and/or crow/ sooce. Slope /o droin. Place weepAoles downw0rd. �- FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL GEOTECH 161xx N. MEADOWDALE RD r CONSULTANTS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON D9�30�36�FE�183 Sc Pio�e �1993�� N.T.S. 6 3 G E O T E C H CONSULTANTS, INC. 13256 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 16 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747.5618 EE� i FAX 747-8561 z' �s�bk �� L 1�U J�tv Interwest Savings Bank 800 Southwest 152nd Street Seattle, Washington 98166 Attention: Mark Willis Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Lot Short Plat No. S-13-91 161X North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Willis: February 16, 1993 JN 93036 RECEIVED MAY - 2 1997 PERMIT COUNTER we are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for Lot 3 of Short Plat No. S-13-91 located on the north side of Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site surface and subsurface conditions and to provide general earthwork recommendations and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. The work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, P-9964 dated February 1, 1993. Three test pits were excavated for this study. Based on these test pits, there are competent soils near the ground surface, and it is our opinion that construction of a house on conventional foundations on this lot is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint. The site is in an area identified as part of the Meadowdale Slide. If the slide were to be reactivated, it is likely that a large block failure would occur. Localized slope failure on or near this lot is not anticipated, and it is our. opinion that no special construction techniques are required for the construction of this house. The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our - recommendations. Please contact us if there are any questions regarding this report, or i1 we can be of further assistance during the design phase of this project. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Burton R. Holt, P.E. ,,Geotechnical Engineer 00 - g7-113M f� GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY LOT 3, SHORT PLAT NO. S-13-91 161XX NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for Lot 3 of Short Plat No. 5- 13-91 located in the 16100 block of North Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. We were provided with a Site Survey of the short plat prepared by Group Four, Inc. which provided the dimensions of the lot and located nearby existing structures. Development of the property is in the planning stage, therefore, detailed plans were not made available to us. Based on conversations with Mark Willis, we anticipate that the lot will be developed with a single-family residence constructed on the northern portion of the property. Foundation cuts, fills or final site grades were not determined at the time this report was presented. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE Lot 3 is an irregular -shaped parcel and is part of the four - lot Short Plat No. S-13-91 located on the north side of North Meadowdale Road in Edmonds, Washington. The undeveloped lot is bordered on the north by undeveloped property, to the southeast by two single-family residences (on Lots 1 and 4 of the short plat), to the south by North Meadowdale Road, and to the west by an existing single-family residence. A 20-foot- wide driveway easement extends along the southeastern boundary of the lot providing access to Lot 2 from Meadowdale Road. The northeastern portion of the parcel slopes moderately to the southwest at an approximate 30 percent inclination, while the central and southern portions of the lot are essentially flat. The southern portion of the lot's surface has been altered by the addition of up to 4 feet of fill. Vegetation on the property consists of native grasses and weeds with blackberry bushes along the western property boundary. We observed no surface or subsurface indications of slope instability on the lot during our field work. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 2 Surface water drainage on the property and surrounding properties is to the north and west. A water course flows northwest through the northern portion of Lot 4 and empties into a catch basin located near the driveway easement to the east of the subject lot. From the catch basin, a storm drain extends northwest through the central portion of Lot 3, to a second catch basin located on the northern boundary of the lot, and on to the adjacent property to the north. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored with three test pits at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. The field exploration program was based upon the proposed construction and required design criteria, site topography and access, subsurface conditions revealed during excavation, the scope of work outlined in our proposal, and time and budget constraints. The test pits were excavated on February 10, 1993 with a rubber -tired backhoe owned and operated by Evans Brothers Excavating. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soils were collected from the backhoe bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3 through 4. Test Pit 1 encountered 3.5 feet of topsoil and loose sand overlying medium -dense, gravelly sand. Test Pit 2 encountered 4 feet of topsoil and loose sand overlying medium -dense, gravelly sand. Underlying the gravelly sand at a beginning depth of 9.5 feet, Test Pit 2 encountered medium -dense silt. Test Pit 3 encountered 4 feet of loose fill and old topsoil overlying medium -dense, gravelly sand. Underlying the gravelly sand at a beginning depth of 6.5 feet, Test Pit 3 encountered dense silt and silty sand. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and laboratory tests. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual and subsurface conditions may vary between exploration locations. The relative densities and GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 3 moisture descriptions indicated on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during excavation. The logs should be reviewed for specific subsurface information at the locations tested. GROUNDWATER Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 8 feet in Test Pits 1 and 2 during excavation. The test pits were left open only for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels on the logs represent the location of transient water seepage and may not be the location of the static groundwater level. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the upper gravelly, sand soils and the underlying silts. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL It is our opinion that development of Lot 3 with a single- family residence is feasible from a geotechnical engineering perspective. The single-family residence ca,n be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on the medium -dense, gravelly sands or silts underlying the loose, near -surface soils. The existing fill in the southern portion of the lot should e co efely removed rom eneat t R e propose s r c ure. This could result in overexcavations of up to—f-eet-t'o—r-each competent bearing soi 1 s. We understand that the residence may be constructed on the existing slope in the northern portion of the property. This could result in excavations of 8 feet or more along the north side of the structure. Our test pits encountered some caving of' the upper gravelly sands especially at the level of groundwater seepage. Consequently, we recommend that temporary foundation excavations be sloped at a maximum inclination of 1.5:1 (Horizontal :Vertical) from the base of the excavation to the existing ground surface. It is important to adequately design for the control of the surface and subsurface groundwater flows. Control measures should be in place both during and after construction of the home. These measures should include foundation drains around the perimeter of the foundation. If the new residence is to be GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 4 constructed in close proximity of the existing storm sewer line, the line should be moved so that the flow from the existing water course is diverted well away from the new structure. Seepage into the foundation excavation is possible, and if encountered, construction dewateri-ng will be required. If grading operations are performed in the drier summer months when the wet, gravelly sands can be air dried, these on -site soils will generally be suitable for use as structural and utility trench backfill. The existing fill and the silts that underlie the gravelly sands will generally not be suitable for use as structural fill. The Meadowdale area has been identified as an old landslide area. It is our opinion that development of this lot, if done in accordance with the recommendations in this report, will result in a structure that is as stable as any in the neighborhood, and the development will not adversely affect the stability of the existing slope or area. Geotech Consultants I.nc. should be given the opportunity to review plans and specifications as they are developed to verify site specific subsurface requirements are met. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS A single-family residence can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium - dense, native. soils or on structural fill placed above these native soils. See the later sub -section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL for recommendations regarding structural fill placement and compaction beneath structures. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface. The footing subgrade must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. Some overexcavation may be required below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the overexcavated hole, the overexcavation must be at least as wide at the bottom as the sum of the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For example, an GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 5 overexcavation extending 2 feet below the bottom of a 3-foot- wide footing must be at least 5 feet wide at the base of the excavation. Footings cons.tructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure -of two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot (psf). 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 less than one-half 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 relatively level, undisturbed soil or level structural fill must be placed around the outside of the foundation. We recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: Design Parameter value Coefficient of Friction 0.35 Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: (1) Pcf .is pounds per cubic foot (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of the foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. 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 The building floor may be constructed as a slab -on -grade atop the native soils following removal of the existing fill and surface organics. The subgrade soils must be in a firm, non- GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 6 yielding condition at the time of slab construction. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and replaced with select imported structural fill. All slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break layer consisting of a minimum four (4) inch thickness of free - draining granular structural fill with a gradation similar to that discussed later in PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS. In areas where the passage of moisture through the slab is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. Additionally, sand should be used in the fine grading process to reduce damage to the vapor barrier and to provide uniform support under the slab. 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: Design Parameter value Active Earth Pressure* 40 pcf Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Coef f i'ci ent of Friction 0.35 Soil Unit Weight 130 pcf Where: 1) Pcf is pounds per cubic foot 2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid densities. * For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100) psf 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. The passive pressure given is appropriate only for the depth of level structural GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 7 fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation wall. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a factor of safety of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not i.nclude the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads wi-11 be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backf.ill 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. Retaining Wall Backfill Backf111 placed behind 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 25 and 70 percent. Due to their silt content, if the native, gravelly sand soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Miradrain or 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 ensure that the design criteria for the retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The top foot to eighteen inches of the backfi11 should consist of a relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The sub- section entitled GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL contains recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation walls. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 8 EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about four (4) feet in unsaturated soils may be attempted vertically. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the native sand soils at the site would be classified as Type C. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than four (4) feet in height cannot be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1.5:1 (Horizontal:Vertical) extending continuously between the top and bottom of the cut. The above recommended temporary slope inclination is based on what has been successful at other sites having similar soil conditions. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. These cut slopes should be backfilled or retained as soon as possible. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should also not be constructed with an inclination greater than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, 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 We recommend the use of footing drains at the base of all footings and backfilled earth 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. A typical drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 6. Groundwater seepage was observed at a depth of 8 feet in Test Pits 1 and-2 during our field work. Therefore, seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • • Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 9 perforated pipe or French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connecto.r 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. Final site grading in areas adjacent to the building should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area is paved. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL We recommend that the building and pavement areas 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 need to support loadst Geotech Consultants, Inc. 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 used, 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: GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • E Interwest Savings Bank February 16, 1993 Location of Fill Placement Beneath footings, slabs or walkways Behind retaining walls JN 93036 Page 10 Minimum Relative Compaction 95% 9 0 % Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90o 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). Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no mo.re 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. LIMITATIONS The analyses, conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soils encountered in the test pits are representative of the subsurface conditions of the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are. significantly different from those observed in the explorations, or assumed to exist in the excavations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking soil samples in test pits. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require that additional expenditures be made to attain a properly constructed project. It is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential.extra costs and risks. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 0 • Interwest Savings Bank JN 93036 February 16, 1993 Page 11 The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward protection of only the structure from damage due to slope movement. Landslides and soil movement can occur on steep slopes. At additional cost, we can provide recommendations for reducing the risk of future movement on the steep slopes, which could involve installation of subsurface drains or construction of costly retaining structures. Alternatively.; the owner can accept the possibility that some of the ground on and above the slope could be lost to slope movement over time. This, report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Interwest.Savings Bank and their representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, and selective laboratory testing and engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and project specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work will not include supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor, his GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Interwest Savings Bank February 16, 1993 JN 93036 Page 12 employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 4 Test Pit Logs Plate 5 Grain Size Analysis Plate 6 Footing Drain Detail Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Burton R. Holt, P.E. Geotechnical Engineer . F],vI w� o� WAS .m ::v / n itK'U, 4 ( FxFi ZEES $1 '7 193 James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. Principal GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. • a11 rL r TL I'S T 1/1 IWTH S ir,2NO STC ......... .... ... L52NO ST Sw A 153 n 0 S T a a Pt Sw ........... > 67ftO < 0 T-174 -155TIl ST > PL i 56TH r _,V >1 UfACH IV ';W T -7 ,J MEADL)WOALf r Pi. I 41 i'Arik jq5/1 .411f "t O 58TH STY 0 W3 31 as a. M., T- r. �UG TO r 4 sw 40 -i - - fli WHARF sw KEE[ r :k I QN0 Sw tt*,'iND PL SV COR �v vi 71 1 1 1 i 1z � 0 st Islil It �-ir,4TH S T L2 I/ Z - i&4TH 'tSTI" S > q4� >1 cut) rl < 111111.1FAL J�L Sw Sw I DS 8TH ST TH ' .. 0 - - IS I 16 AIJA DOWDALE 'AEADO 3; r,1TH Pt V.' P, HS ) Tvi PL SW ILI I et. > -'I )?Nr T $W y S > 171ST 1 72N D 172NO IT '7ta2 -LV-Y Tf 0,,,,v L Z' A,,V5 vw 11.101 ,f7rN PL SW k"tnrrn ' 1ti 'yl-os6v T" SI Ss ST '�vi j SW C 1 1) TH ST Sw z po svv TT v (14 01 T6 ST A Ln _Uso r' y'..,• 176111 Pt SW 1781111 ST SIN IL 117HTH P1 $W r 09TH r,y 2 � — I I 1 �1;711 =.It DI PL S-V' n. I&H II 4 le o H FLI I ST SItV ai'T-T 1�w ?L Lt T, C) X, T PL S%J Si stv r p %V rf Tc 181 . I- ""', > < PL S',V 181 7 pt IbI N 0 T > 0 82 WND i--LL 83 FL. 113A S T %. z Sw 7' PL.' sw S- PL S. P imp c > IB4TH S W 184TH P L I.T�� v v 0'St IF35TIif ST < > -Z7 I r th-T -JP < 185T H 3: PL lG �= 3: S�W > >S7N: R4q x a 6 T IH- ST SW 186THI N", t'y RD -2 5T IN = 3: ITTH T p tv -1 > EUJ ;e IMTH- r 18rTh PL S. FiS ........ >fs . (.>. -Lm1t-pL-5"- PENNY LN I TH PL SW 1: 1 I y ST %J 4 >PS LYNNOALE.'- . PL SW > px t 189 rLj. Et xf-z� IWTH T S%V T�l — 'b.W,', " "I " 1. — igiST ST 1915l S 91 > 191ST P Sw P4 W T IqIS1 STiSW i89TH 9! 1(1$1 ' ' R , S7 9�� r, 191ST I V, 1901m - 191ST We T, S ST ctf ti f SW IS -'ND ST 192N D c 192NO ;It Qt > SWt. St sw -T z 192NO ST :LS P L 192NO ;: PL I PARK Wr 5CRIBER I'- S..." eyqI ENO I >19.2,0 PL SW ILA,<E M ItIjhu V LJB j--�-93HQ FILL 192U 39 193A ST SW tis I T 193R t I — PL SW S. 194TH ST SIN '1"- 39 < a _196TH ST Sw 3 I Ask > cz 196TH 2 z w PAR,<-- I 24 TH Sw Q. In K-W-j (1a 0 D H E I N Z L-133' C. r > -.-,I T VICINITY MAP GEOTECH 161XX N. MEADOWDALE RD. CONSULTANTS EDMONDS, WASHINGTON No.: Dole: Logged By-* p/olf 93036 FEB 1993 0 CATCH BASIN �No TP-1 m i TP-2 3 �y \m i \ TP-3 \ � - CATCH BASIN Py � R eP 4 N LEGEND: XISTING HOUSE ® APPROXIMATE- TEST PIT LOCATIONS :l GEOTECH CONSULTANTS i SITE EXPLORATION PLAN 161 XX N. MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .lob No.Dole: Pole: 93036 FEB 1993 2 0 `r`0 oeQ `J`e �``0l 5 o��e uscs TEST PIT 1 0 Topsoil Elevation Brown to light gray, slightly silty, nudium SAND, very moist, 2. loose, some gravel. -becomes medium -dense at'3.5 feet 5 SP -rust stained lenses -becomes wet v 19.8 10 Gray to dark Gray, slightly silty, gravelly, medium SAND, wet, medium -dense. Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing gracle on 2-10-93. 1 S Groundwater seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation. Slight caving at 8 feet. I u 5 0 G uscs Topsoi 1 TEST PIT 2 Description Elevation Brown, slightly silty, tine to coarse grained, gravelly SAND, wet, loose. 12.3 -becomes medium -dense I 10 29.9 Gray, nonplastic SILT, some sand, very moist, medium -dense Mt -becomes dense Test pit terminated at 12.0 feet below existing grade on 2-10-93. 15 Groundwater seepage encountered at 8 feet during excavation. Slight caving at 8 feet. GEOTECH CONS UTA'ANTS. INC. TEST PIT LOGS 161 XX N. MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS, WA E993Job: Date: Logged by: Plate: 036 FEB 1993 BRH 3 5 30.6 10 �_ 19.8 15 TEST PIT 30 Uscs Descriotion Elevation Brown, slightly silty, gravelly, medium SAND, moist, loose (fill) occasional organics and asphalt -becomes blue -;ray, silty, gravelly sand, moist, loose (till) occasional organics and asphalt debris. old topsoil SP Brown, slightly silty, gravelly, medium SAND, very moist, medium - dense. Blue -gray, nonplastic SILT, some sand, very moist, dense. Blue --fay, silty, tine SAND, trace gravel, very moist, dense. Test pit terminated at 11.0 feet below existing grade on 2-10-93. No groundwater seepage encountered during excavation. No caving. GEOTECH C ONSUl.'1'ANTS. INC. TEST PIT LOGS 161 XX N. MEADOWDALE RD EDMONDS, WA Job No: Date: Logged by. Plate: 993036 FES 1993 BRH 4 Side Sewer Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENTNO . ............................................ NEV CONSTRUCTION [] � REPAIRS [I LID NO ................... ASMT. NO . .................. OWNER ........ CONTRACTOR 8oc k hot ..... 5ervi*cc . ........ PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS ..... (i.j.q LEG Al T)ESCRIPTIO'N: LOT NO . .......... . . ........................ BLOCK NO. . ................................. r4 00 I L96 Sl- 10c, tb PWW-OD01 -11175 (REV. Hna) ...................................................................................................um4 - I ...... .............. D L114E ; NAMEOF ADDITION ............. ...... ..... . ............................. .. . ................ 7 ....................................... Approved: DATE ........... By .............. ...... 1. ---- ...................... Water Service Drawing Titre 'City of Edmonds EASEMENT . NO . ............................................ NEW CONS-l"RUCTION El REPAIRS 0 LID NO . .................. ASMT. NO . .................. W OWNER ....................................................................................... WTM . NO .. ............... PERMIT NO-T\.0105.. attached m vin 0=410 ftr rasa f� JOB ADDRESS ....... BLOCK NO . ................................. . ..... ............... and anything 8d fodh on ft utq- &V pwsm a W* VKHaft a No shouw cWAd-an-ft*pqW&#- F-top"-dal hft; .8ften-W .............................................................. ...... to VaA kckft bd nd Imb : kcaft of aq ftch WM bb"&#rx*lWhvWk ...................................................... ....... ...... Wdm &4wm Now ft 04 of Rho* ow it Wken of dk" sw be Oak Isis ft Inkn4don an " at* W (W M wal Rl I - -z &Alk PV4W.00UI-11175 (REV. 11178) DATE....... ................ By .................................................. RETURN ADDRESS:! City of Edmonds,. Ci ty C1 erk 121 5th Avenue No, Edmonds, WA 98020 9 ,160501 07/16/97 14:57 p.0005 Recorded Snohomish County -3U! L n,l46 AUG - 8 1997 COVENANT OF NOTIFICATION AND INDEMNIFICATION/HOLD HARMLESS Reference Grantor(s): (1)2c,y.o-?, (2) � �� r q0 Additional on pg. Grantee(s): City of -Edmonds Legal Description (abbreviated): Sec 57 Twn Z Rn& Qtr OR Lot ' , Block Plat S-13 - q1 Assessor's Tax Parcel ID#(s): (1),-5-1 �.Sf9 C➢3�'S (2) 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: RETURN ADDRESS-.* City of Edmonds, Ci ty Cl e r k 121 5th Avenue No'. Edmonds, WA 98020 1. Description of Subiect Property. • EAPPROVED FOR RECORDING: DATE: OF This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless relates to a tract of land at the street address of CQ- c.'��� k� (insert street address), Edmonds Snohomish County, Washington and legally described as: 2. Notification and Covenant of Notification. - The above referenced site (hereinafter "subject site") lies within an area which has been identified.by the City of Edmonds as having a potential for earth subsidence or landslide hazard. The risks associated with development of the site have been evaluated by technical consultants and engineers engaged by the applicant as a .part of the process to obtain a building permit for the subject site. The results of the consultant's reports and evaluations of the risks associated with development are contained in building permit rile 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 9707160501 RETURN ADDRESS:• City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue No. Edmonds, WA 98020 EAPPROVED:FOR RECORDING: DATE: 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 Planning Department, City of Edmonds, 250 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 970716 0501 RETURN ADDRESS:! City of Edmonds, Ci ty C1 erk 121 5th Avenue No. Edmonds, WA 98020 APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY: DATE: PAGE OF arising out of any false, misleading, or inaccurate information. provided by the OWNERS, their employees, or professional consultants in the course of issuance of the building permit. 4. Insurance Requirement. In addition to any bonding which may be required during the course of development, the Community Services Director has/has not (strike one) specifically required the maintenance of an insurance policy for public liability coverage in the amount and for the time set forth below in order to provide for the financial responsibilities established through the indemnification and hold harmless agreement above: 5. Covenant to Touch and Concern the Land. This covenant of notification and indemnification/hold harmless touches and concerns the subject tract and shall run with the land, binding, obligating and/or inuring to the benefit of future owners, heirs, successors and interests or any other person or entity acquiring an interest in property, as their interest may appear. This provision shall not be interpreted to require a mortgagor or lender to indemnify the City except to the extent lof their loss nor to obligate such persons to maintain the insurance above required. 9707160501 RETURN ADDRESS: • City of Edmonds, City Clerk 121 5th Avenue No. Edmonds, WA 98020 APPROVED FOR RECORDING: BY. DATE: PAGE OF DONE this _ day of- 199 OWNER(S) By: ,� C By:�-��- By STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss: COUNTY OF ) I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that jO H Al )0 Y0j1Nr-T— .4 V NNE !101-)A16— 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 - �Jt� — , 199%. NOTARY PUBLIC My commission expires: J 0 dm L:\TEMP\BUILDING\MEADOW\COVENANT _ _ •�► C' 9707160501 1. CITY OF EDMONDS vBARBARA MAHEY MAYYOROR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771-0221 1hc.1sq"" April 9, 1999 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering John & Lynne Young 16123 North Meadowdale Road Edmonds, Washington 98026 RE: Homeowner Insurance Coverage for Meadowdale Development As you may recall, development of your home was subject to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 19.05.050 which regulated construction and insurance coverage requirements for all designated Meadowdale Landslide Hazard Area development. The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the Edmonds City Council has enacted a change which effects your homeowners policy that was required by this ordinance. If you recall you were required to post a one million dollar homeowner policy in order for your home to be granted final occupancy. Please be advised, the City Council has repealed this requirement effective April 16, 1999. In lieu of this policy the City Council will be holding future public hearings to determine alternate coverage methods to ensure that the intent of ECDC 19.05.050 are still met. Please contact the City Clerk if you are interested in attending these meetings. You may wish to consult your insurance professional to determine the proper amount of insurance coverage necessary to meet your specific needs. Since the insurance requirement is repealed the City no longer requires to be informed of your coverage or be provided with a copy of your current policy. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions at 771-0220. Thank you, Jeannine L. Graf Building Official ° Incorporated August 11, 1890 ° Sister City - Hekinan, Japan • Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer 0 April 12, 1998 City of Edmonds Building Division 250 - 5th Avenue North Edmonds, Washington City of Edmonds Permit No. 970555 Owner: John and Lynn Young Site Address: 16123 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds Subject: Final Report Geotechnical Inspections, Young New Residence This engineering report. presents the results of on -site geotechnical inspections for the John -and Lynn Young new.single family residence at 16123 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, Washington. Geotechnical inspection was -required by the findings of this engineer's geotechnical assessment report and also required by City of Edmonds. References: • July 16, 1996 Geotechnical Assessment Report by D. Bruce, P.E. • February 13, 1997 Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk by D. Bruce, P.E. • April 26, 1997 Geotechnical Response to City of Edmonds Issues by D. Bruce, P.E. • City of Edmonds approved project plans • Inspection photographs • August 7, 1997 Geotechnical Inspection Report by D. Bruce, P.E., verifying the anticipated foundation soil conditions and approving of drainage controls. This inspection report allowed foundation concrete to be placed. Summary of Geotechnical Inspections: This single family. lot required geotech.nical monitoring in accordance with City of Edmonds requirements...;As. previously stated; this engineer verified they presence of dense, native sub -grade soils, capable of providing 2,000 p.s.f bearing capacity: Additionally, the presence of ground. water.required effective site management. Project contractor (Mr. Dan Young), effectively -con trolled and directed the ground SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL 17814 8th Ave. N.W. • Shoreline, Washington 98177 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 City of Edmonds/Young Page two water (in accordance with City of Edmonds guidelines and this engineer's on -site recommendations). Foundation concrete was properly placed on the dense, native subgrade soils. Foundation stem walls were also properly constructed. Site grading was accomplished in accordance with the recommendations of the geotechnical report. The lot topography required some small landscape retaining walls (lower and upper -- see photographs). These landscape retaining walls were constructed under this engineer's observation, and in accordance with site recommendations. Conclusions and Recommendations: Based on the findings of this engineer's on -site geotechnical inspections and experience with similar projects, the following are concluded and recommended: • The key geotechnical aspects relating to the John and Lynn Young residence at 16123 N. Meadowdale Road, are approved. • Soil conditions met or exceeded the anticipated conditions per the geotechnical report. Bearing capacity met or exceeded 2,000 p.s.f. • The landscape retaining walls are geotechnically approved. • The sub -surface drainage system was properly installed and maintained. It is functioning properly and should provide good service for the life of the residence. Monitoring of the drainage system is essential. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. ,74o5 �0191, St6RQ°w LE�G� DMB:vIb EXPQtES j3/14 cc: Dan Young. g Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer PC APPLICATION REQUIREMENTS &REET FIL . To: Applicant From: Jamal Mahmoud, Engineering Inspector Owner: ,) I) kn 9, 1 `i�✓ Plan Check No: 9 %— 5 U QZ.1 Dater G- 9 7 After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements must be met: 1. Construction hours are: WEEKDAYS — 7:00 A.M.-10:00 P.M.;WEEKENDS/HOLIDAYS —10:00 A.M.-6:00 P.M. 2. A separate RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT is required for all work on public property. (ECDC 18.60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. 4. Builder/owner is responsible for containing all temporary runoff and erosion control on site (ECDC 18.30.030d). 5. NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN 15 FEET OF STREAMS OR 10 FEET FROM ANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACILITY. BUILDER/OWNER IS RESPONSIBLE FOR IDENTIFYING CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC 18.30.50G) 6. ' FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTRUCTION. (ECDC 18.30) 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES AND CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFILLING. (ECDC 18.30) 8. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter and sidewalk adjacent to the property. If an intersection is involved, a handicap ramp may be required.. Contractor shall meet with the City Engineering staff to determine the extent of repair prior to issuance of the permit. (ECDC 18.90) 9. Driveway slope shall not exceed 14% without a waiver. Every attempt should be made to keep the slope below 14%. Waiver granted to %. (ECDC 18.80.060D) 10. Driveways must be paved from property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate permit is required., (ECDC 18.80.060C) 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDEWALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. (ECDC 18.30) 12. No burning of construction refuse without a permit from the Fire Department. 13. Connection to City water system is required. There is a separate charge for the water meter (ECDC 7.20). 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 15. Water and sewer main lines should be separated by 10 feet minimum. (ECDC 18.10) 16. Connection to the City sanitary system is required. A separate permit is required. LID# 2 (y Fees paid: Yes No Charge 55 (ECDC 18.10) 17. Underground wiring is required on all new construction, and for additions, alterations, and repairs that exceed 50% of the total assessed value of the structure. (ECDC 18.90) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCUPANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) PRMTAPP.DW �-j "'.S i ."t*' . ;'�,"n `£ � �, � ;;�d" °tw'• ,� g1 �+"RAM r�'�i` 4 d� �{v!' r�3"4 ,"'� 4`�wV���r ROJECT,REVIEW PROJECT NAME. PLA HECK #. PROJECT ADDRESS: ✓�Q ECEIPT DATE: Z • i+'ijti<'<i*.:.!.:r.:',>:>ii;;::iYv.+v'?ii:%J:JF?.j..i::y}:tjr:}fij:�y�+�,::,v,:Y:i.�..y:: '4}:t''.:t •r j .:: . -.. .t; �5%i .Y�. t7 hR �\ >:M:::!�j$�'!!!'r{ 2 •.}wYM+r.��, }::y.�y�}y vi'+'3 '.i}Oi'-r,%}'',-iC::K,�: Ib .' �VII~:VY D;B.� ..: :6o-?•:> rttt Ue r }:•,:-', ::.yi, %,R�i.:7• conditional Use Permit ADB Requirements Other Zoning Requirement Underground Wirin Re Lot Slope_ 1 S% SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit Tree Cutting Plan Plat/Subdivision Requirements " S -13 - 91 Legal Description Verification _ 3 Quit Claim/Street Dedications Easements - Public/Private En ineerin Storm Drain Review Fee '3p Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee 3 b Drainage Plan On -Site See L'F✓:l L944 Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses Setback - Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing Uvert size.-. Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff Catch Basin Required Driveway Slope K Vehicle Access Sidewalk Required .Q, Curb & Gutter Required Curb Cut For Driveway Required Street Paving Required :w Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required Street Name Sign Required :. . Other Signing Required Bond Required For Public Improvements FEMA Map Check/Water Table Side Sewer Availability5 Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID -# ,P-4 r Create Street File >. Existing Water Main Size ya Water Meter Size f Service Lin@ Size ; . � , w « .. Wa—tGFMeterCharge Required, Hydrant Required r�,,: Mum . Sias® WIN '�i,� FINISH ��- €�%®® ®�# ' in,� ^a�u wttx rtc+Ytt+•YY .5N NUr5yag•�+A✓}.T, y1S.. f'q Ph " yj ENGNEERS COST ESTIMATE RE I !a RON No M-E n a ME man Sam SUMMON Sam MEN NOSES a mail MEN MEN Sam ONE I anx-nowsm's DESCRIPnoN OF WORK Is s ccty a:4 7- 3 "22 L 14 C. L t,7 if q-v C>-��; iotry L"Le .70 fzzt 2-6 e Yc*, -2- R-e-v ta I A�wlce P-1c L'4t' IJ- e2 .06 amt Ji 11 low-- COUNTY PARK ' ° G CH uN� 5 L 3 3 ° PAW Q Q "Ir $ ` I ISS/d h /5515 Gn pn n )02D I Z 7105 7OZ5 I r, 7/03 1 � IJJ/e /33/7 7003 1 el 60 7/ / I i 1330d 7111 7107 7Qf1 7C0.9 I I � 7117 I i /5e04 15605 "22 7124 7100 /s6o1 Be/e 6e17 0 . 0 /36/0 701E 13600 �° 0 /56/I 7120 13wi 6616 6e15 7l/O (), 0 oa n /s6/s a /s6zo 6811 LIFT STA. Oil a /sez0 loz9 7B/a 15631 6e// 7117 m s9 GP m 7119 ee el lo•u i 6e09 15700 ♦6 /SB23 65 13701 15702 pp 13101 13703 660.5 b O 9b 15714 15631 n '� /5709 15707 6801 Ca 1572.1 I57/2 LJ 680e s1'v Doe /3711 1J729 1371E ISIN 137'" n $ 15720 ♦3 4e SD 51 15 H 5: 13730 /slJz 74 yp 1158/0 m 7400 71 rz / 7J14 /Je/4 /Jeoo 55 Se09 n 3 SO/O 1 /sa/W1 /Se1. .z /5e24 15623 1 � " 1e r3ez7 /seze /sere I i 99M /3904 /3925 = 15911 13907 15902 Gi a /3910 15910 1Ja0e 1 /59W 1390E /591 /3917 /59/l lee 15913 ' 1 ;'jog 15920 i6 n 00 24 ip co / /6000 21 15926 dD// 6119O9 15920 M zs_---____ o / 7 / /59J/ _ �/_ _ 1812% /60/7/ EB20 l / O / / 60b.7 $970 6910 /ea ze / 16OZ41 /6 a 160/O /6ol�J 2 /60J1 / Coto 16/00 1S l6/l9 16//5 /6010 6l p691e 6�e l /6/OSl 6D60 ei 6 ], f I6920 /603e 3e MEADOWDALE / 22 6/3 27 /6lll f /Q20D 69/Q e,509 6Q0 J MARINA / /e/o�z 36 B9/z 6908 90i J L BBM /6/1/ \ e1/ 2 /6/10 W /e/z1 \ �w > n z0o S7 io — ..e. is- 6z0D i6iia \ l a /u// \ cwe/svice 16209 162/1 \ 6923 L / 5 /6110 / / /6220 6 mot/twig691J [♦, /6310 I l /6225 /Mm /6r19 612E �� y1 ♦w.� f � / 16uo 5♦ I 5911 02 L;::Z v /ez2s 0 /Br12 /62J2 690d OD / b 16411 � 3$ /63/7 97 69/9 � e9/3 6e02 / /e31d 1-15 16520 / /6404 � ,., ° 7 /63/9 � 0B 6909 95 690/ / 1640E /6429 z e 7109 18"1 /63P1 I6J1/ I ♦a to ♦ 4. 4 / AV7 N 2 e aaa 1z 1 —tl— / I 1 7517 7J09 7502 71/D 721J 69/4 6910 6e05 / I 1 nor 1 n/4 0 I / luo ^ 6e09 •w I / \ \ le SW 16419 r > 7406 7504 721e 711z le 6a// aw Q 7314 7306 o 0 7o1e � A p4e5 = z6 zr M£gnrti-.. Ben/ 0? Wale PAW ^ I GATE N e ^ 7029 _ 1 1a 71015 7025 7103 1 15516 �15517 7003 1 7! / I /5508 7111 7107 7031 7009 7227 1-1 HI-1 EW-1975 HI-2 I j HI-14 4'D.1. 1-2 _ _____ _____c11I _J 90 PSI 1-3 ��— ----- --- SW -- p 7zz2 — 15604 /3605 7124 7/00 1/5601 68/8 68/7 0 15610 c D 7026 15600 1 1561 68/6 D i 7/20 1562/ 6815 O 7110 15620 15815 15620 - p HI -IA /36J/ 6Bl2 I- li I-4A 118 127 PSI 7019 70/9 68117119 Q p N1-5 e"D.1. 6809 Q /3706 15625 D NI-SAI 1570/ /5702 1-5 /5703 15705 6805 O _3A CLOSED mm p m 6 137/9 � � °• 15707 O 6801 /5722 EW 1975 l37/? 6808' /372! - /5728 15724 1-1 IA /5729 M a /5723 h h y ro l5720 ' 158 TH H1- 157JO 15732 HI-4 `O ��� r A�77 o cN SW e 113B/d-23 HI_ 1- EW-1973 /SBOB 15814 3B21 7324 W 15814 15800 Q15809 1581? 3 15824 15810 /SB/B p 1 15824 I lsers g - 1 4 1590E /5827 /5826 /6828 1 io i 15925 15904 /39/1 15907 15902 _ 15910 ^ 15910 0 13906.1 15902 1/5912 15927 15917 15915 15908 I 7509 15920 116000 1-24 1-22A a D.A. 15926 H1-5 /5920 1-25 - _ 1-7 69// 6909 e' D.I. I-10 11------- Sit /60/2/ +1-22 16/2/ - I-8 Iu 1-II p / 160 _ !60 / N1 13 /6/23 16008 8970 69/0 6820 1 o e O ElM-1975 1 / 16074/ !8 I.P.140 PSI 16010 O. P.54 PSI l l /�0 16031 l 69/6 6826 c /6/00 16119 16115 16020 l /60/O 161051 HI-13A E' 197541a 0.O' 6960 D �� 6920 16038 �C yW 116106 / _ �1=21 15109 1 mw I .130 161111 1 / % O i 16209 69/86809 6803 135 /_7 1 n1-12 6912 7 Pp 161 7 161 '` \ 690E 61ST P1. i / / g 1 7 / 461O0 162/5 HI-SB HI 17 6B04 a /6//5l l / //7� /6/ \��\ p /6/3/ \ 16116 1 9 1-25 ! 161?/ !6l?? L_—.___ __ I\ 0�\2/7 1 0 \ / I-i0 I-31 /8202 /6209 /6216_, \ HI-19 16211 \ OPEN $PAGE /B209 /62/4 \ 6923 g 16z1s \ p / /6220 /6220 4., 16219 6923 / 16310 / l � 1 16238 HI-9 (�223 6805 N1-5c 1-I2 / 16520 / / /$256 /6224 /622B �� HI -II / Ew-195 16225 692/ A.' e" 16222 HI- I-12A /6232 6908 /6JJ0 15411 +�i O Ew-305 16317 6919 - b -19B o 6915 EW-1975 /63/B 16515 /8320 1-19A 6802- 16404 h - HI-8 16319 I CLOSED $909 690/ I -IBC 16 H1-19 l6429 ^ e u 7/09 16323 l6322 _ I l832/ � I NI-10 1-190 1 I N07 1 105 P51 6904 / OPEN 3i 5 SG I 1 /. 73/7 7309 7302 72/9 72/3 e• C.I. 65 P51 IL7-29B 3-43E 69/0 I �� �w n3-29A 7114 EW-lel - 5914 -^^_ 6803 I� COUN ARK � .nr va Aln 11rcN GULCH 4 g > > PaPA a a GA7C g @ g 15516 1-ale h "� lSS/S 7029 Z 1105 7025 N N nar J55/6 ^ 155/7 7X3 7!0 7227 15308 7111 7l07 7037 7079 MEW 156TH ST SW ls60+ C 0 1J6W 7222 7124 71M 15601 64918 6917 Q 2Y 0 1-1 2 IJ6I0 7Oe6 15600 ' 1-t5� 62 15674 /562/ 6816 6811 7120 7170 I'll) Q 1562V 15615 15620 13631 68/2 70.�9 7019 6811 1_123 7117 en 7119 15706 /5625 T sw '-12a 15703 -124 a 15701 15705 1-133 1570e m yyyY�111 0 15714 f5631 ♦ ^ 15709 15707 -1I8 117l2 - _ 13722 1_136 ; 6808 S W 1-6 19 ,Jl2B f572I /1729 1572+¢ 1+ n w 15725 a 15720 -I31 1-11♦ 1 H - u 1a.2 r»o /573o 15732 r166 I-Iw 1-z 5910 710p PICK 1-141 /JBOB IM1+ Lj 1582! 732+ > 1591+ 159/2 1J600 Q ISB09 = tJBPI I-t28 1a8IB I-166 , d21 O 1-121 r5 !' "7 ♦ 15827 1JBE1S JJB28 I-3 159,v 1 1-146 1-al I 3 ,L9 j, 1591I lS907 IJStlP I590+ 1ti 15910 1- 7 O I59l0 z 5906 1-1)1 z 1-19 1/2 159g2 1-176 ISA78 15912 1- 1-76 N 59I7 13915 7 MEW 155M r\ 1-191" 1-ll] 16" I- 1-79 1-70 1- IJ9P6 6971 6909 /J920 1-a -n 1 T4 160TH T SW 1 16012 231-n 1 21 1 l�� ""1-M 1-73 1397/ 161e1 1-LL6 60 - 1-3] 600 /600 w� •7 105 1_ 16008 6970 69l0 -84 I6010 1_112 J60P+ 1601 n 1-67 -36 �I J 6916 68P6 1601 6031 6010 16109 16119 J6J15 16020 1-19 1-172 F 6960 6920 16039 3 1-tl Q' 167 \ 16109 1-1a1 1-133 1-79 16177 161 GRIM VIT1 i-110 162119 6918 {, 6809 6908 6B07 161 wT[9¢ roI sYSr131 69l2 909 61Q !61 16100 .6 J6213 1_1,] 6801 1-12 39e 1-136 Q /6I31 76 6217 16116 w° y, 6/21 76122 1 > 1-4] 1-113 9 VAT[R � Q wTCRCCPTOR STSTCN ___ __. _.._.. __ _,. 1-90 1-00 16" w I6209 16P16 �J zO > 6P/I ZPCN SPACC - 1-13 ' 1-�1 � 1'x l6217 162680J 1-1. 20 i-M t20 /62/9 6921 e 16310 1-39 1� 1-53 A 16eP7 1 1-Im �5 1-102 622V 16228 16"1- I-16] C /622$ 6921 1_l0a 16eee 69BB 16111 q 69t9 1 9 16232 167J) l 1-lS 8 J! l693o 6S ie Z 1_ o-9a 6915 680P 1-ISM Cu76318 l6315 16320 1 N 16319 16J 65VI 1 1610I 1-136 1-95 6] 1-16 ' P[Ez TWC � 7l09 l6323 J6322 163 '. p 1 - v 1_l66 I6+29 ♦ 1-I)9 1-5I ,-30 1-+7 16721 '-% 1-9� r93 6901 1-6 A07 a^CN 1-41 7317 7" 7" 72l9 7eJ3 69J4 6910 6803 740+ J6+10 3-d0+ 3-nn 3-19 701+ 6tm7 3 ^ ] 732V PL SW 16+19 A 6W9 w 120 3_n d1e ,-�, V� 6811 J6+at 7+06 730+ 7018 72f2 164ro - 16508 77J+ 7306 S f O 66W f— tl7 l✓J P.n 1 ■ .Mn'• you" * R l 6 12 ENGINEERS COST ESTIMATE ITEM DESCRIPTION OF WORK UNIT UNITISSUE QTY COST TOTAL xca p o 3� R *01 +-; �uc��/� L� L in ci 42 i% 6 2 940 2 $.db 4 490 .If" 6° ®s lNa �/ aby lo—e v►ro e." ,�''� n: ,� 40 `L d p ik,1� Sv vC 4,A44; 0(rgt,' 70 6 - f fq e4 1R +-��► \ W. fexe 6f S'.k i A) Ott, 2 Gov 3 S oo e b�' G 2a-fi�o l 6 c� 0 6.9 -4 _. j • Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. STPFFT ! Geotechnical/Civil Engineer April 26, 1997 City of Edmonds c/o Mr. Dan Young Subject: Geotechnical Response City of Edmonds Issues - April 7, 1997 Memo Proposed YOUNG residence 16123 N. Meadowdale Rd This engineering letter responds to the City of Edmonds April 7, 1997 memo by reviewer J. Graf, regarding Edmonds, the swAMr. & Mrs. Young residence at 16123 N. Meadowdale REFERENCES: • Project Plans • Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. ISSUE: Statistical Probability of Earth Movement As stated in the Geotechnical Report, the lot for the proposed Young residence is geotechnically viable 'when constructed in accordance with the recommendations therein and compliance with City of Edmonds permit requirements. The overall region had been designated. by City of Edmonds as within the "Meadowdale Sensitive Area". Geotechnically, The Youngs property is not significantly affected, by threatening soil conditions. There does exist a sloped area northerly of the building site. (See survey and site plan). This sloped area is currently vegetated with dense grasses, brush, and trees. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN &PERMIT •LEGAL 17814 8th Ave. N.W. • Seattle, Washington 98177 (206) 546-9217 7. FAX 546-8442 Mr. Dan Young Page 2 As stated in the geotechnical report, 'no disturbance of the sloped area is proposed nor allowed by the engineer. It is hoped that any future upslope development on adjoining properties will be closely regulated by the City of Edmonds to maintain slope integrity and not create potentially dangerous conditions for the Young residence. CONCLUSION: The probability of earth movement affecting the Young property over the next 25 years is remote (less than one percent) if northerly slope integrity is maintained. No clear cutting. No drainage discharge from upslope development. No construction on the slope face without 'rigorous geotechnical engineering. Thus, any potential earth movement affecting the Young residence will only arise from improper development/impacts to the northerly slope. It is understood that the City of Edmonds will diligently regulate any slope impacts. If there are any questions, do no hesitate to call. �26,t^-�1 m . " Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical/Civi.l Engineer cc: Mr. & Mrs. Young Walter Adamson ,.. 4UTY y Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer STREET FILE April 26, 1997 City of Edmonds c/o Mr. Dan Young Subject: Geotechnical Response City of Edmonds Issues - April 7, 1997 Memo Proposed YOUNG residence 16123 N. Meadowdale Rd This engineering letter responds to the City of Edmonds April 7, 1997 memo by reviewer J. Graf, regarding the proposed Mr. & Mrs. Young residence at 16123 N. Meadowdale Rd, Edmonds, WA. REFERENCES: • Project Plans • Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. ISSUE: Statistical Probability of Earth Movement As stated in the Geotechnical Report, the lot for the proposed Young residence is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations therein and compliance with City of Edmonds permit requirements. The overall region had been designated by City of Edmonds as within the "Meadowdale Sensitive Area". Geotechnically, The Youngs property is not significantly affected by threatening soil conditions. There does exist ' a sloped area northerly of the building site. (See survey and site plan). This sloped area is currently vegetated with dense grasses, brush, and trees. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL 17814 8th Ave. N.W. • Seattle, Washington 98177 • (206) 546-9217 • FAX 546-8442 Mr. Dan Young Page 2 As stated in the geotechnical report, *no disturbance of the sloped area is proposed nor allowed by the .engineer. It is hoped that any future upslope development on adjoining properties will be closely regulated by the City of Edmonds to maintain slope integrity and not create potentially dangerous conditions for the Young residence. CONCLUSION: The probability of earth movement affecting the Young property over the next 25 years is remote ' (less than one. percent) if northerly slope integrity is maintained. ` No clear cutting. No drainage discharge from upslope development. No construction on the slope face without rigorous geotechnical engineering. Thus, any potential earth movement affecting the Young. residence will only arise from improper development/impacts to the northerly slope. It is understood that the City of Edmonds will diligently regulate any slope impacts. If there are any questions, do no hesitate to call. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical/Civi.l Engineer cc: Mr. & Mrs. Young Walter Adamson EXPIRES 12/23/ LANDAU AASSOCIATES, INC. Environmental and Geotechnical Services Ms. Jeannine Graf City of Edmonds Community Services Department 250 Fifth Avenue North Edmonds, Washington 98020 RE: GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW ' PROPOSED SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE (JOHN AND LYNNE YOUNG) 16123 NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Dear Ms. Graf: OU11DING APR 2 f 1997 April 21, 1997 As requested, Landau- Associates has reviewed the geotechnical-related aspects of construction plans and other documents submitted to the City of Edmonds (City) as part of the application for the subject proposed single family residence. The following documents were provided for our review by the City: • Geotechnical Engineering Study; Lot 3, Short Plat No. S-13-91;16123 North Meadowdale Road. - Edmonds, Washington; prepared by Geotech Consultants, Inc., dated February 16,1993 • Site Topography Plan and Tree Cut Plan, prepared by Continental Engineering Co., dated February 19, 1996. • Construction Plans, Sheets 0 through 6, prepared by Continental Engineering Co. and Architects NW, dated May 29, 1996, with revisions dated January 30, 1997. • Geotechnical Assessment; 16123 N. Meadowdale Road; proposed John & Lynn Young Residence, Lot #3, Short Plat #5-13-91; prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.; dated July 16, 1996. • City of Edmonds Environmental Checklist for the proposed residence, dated July 22, 1996, and signed by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. • Standard Drainage Detention System Worksheet for the proposed residence, prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.; dated September 11, 1996. • Architect Declaration, prepared by A. Walter Adamson, dated January 30, 1997. WORLD TRADE CENTER • 3600 PORT OF TACOMA ROAD • SUITE 209 • TACOMA, WA 98424 • (206) 926-2493 • FAX (206) 926-253 t EDMONDS: (206) 778-0907 • FAX (206) 778=6409 / SPOKANE: (509) 327-9737 • FAX (509) 327-9691 • Geotechnical Declaration and Statement of Risk, Young Residence @ 16123 N. Meadowdale Road; prepared by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.; dated February 13, 1997. • Applicant/Owner Liability & Landslide Acknowledgment for the proposed residence, dated February 18,1997. As part of our review, a brief site visit was completed by Mr. Edward J. Heavey, P.E. of Landau Associates on February 26, 1997 to observe existing conditions. GENERAL The subject property is located about 400 ft upland (east) of the mapped Meadowdale slide scarp (Roger Lowe and Associates 1979), and is within an area which does not exhibit evidence of past slope failures. Therefore, it is our opinion that a strict review of the documents under City of Edmonds Ordinance 2661, Earth Subsidence and Landslide Hazard Areas, is not entirely necessary. Accordingly, our review focuses primarily on the steep slope and landslide hazard issues defined within Chapter 20.15B, Interim Critical Areas of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Relevant items from City Ordinance 2661 are covered, where appropriate. Based on review of the site topography map, prepared by Continental Engineering Co., only the eastern 20 to 60 ft of the site has slopes of 30 percent or steeper. The remainder of the site is relatively flat -lying. According to the site plan, the main residence will be located on the portion of the site with slopes of 10 percent or less, though the attached garage and driveway will extend into the area of 30 percent slope. Sites with slopes at or steeper than 30 percent are classified as Steep Slope Hazard Areas under Chapter 20.15B. In addition, review of test pit logs completed at the site indicate the site is underlain by relatively impervious soil, and that a relatively high groundwater table is present. Therefore, according to Chapter 20.15B, Section 20, Subsection W2a, the eastern 20 to 60 ft of the site would also be classified as a landslide hazard area, though no physical evidence of past slope failure(s) is presented. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT In general, Landau Associates agrees with the geotechnical conclusions and recommendations contained in the February 16,1993 geotechnical report for the project. Our only comment is in regards to seepage observed issuing from the slope on the east portion of the site. 2 LANDAU ASSOCIKEES, INC. During the February 26, 1997 site visit by a representative of Landau Associates, moderate groundwater seepage was observed to be flowing from the face of the slope near the east property line. In addition, the surficial soil on the slope below the zone of seepage was noted to be wet. It is unknown if groundwater flows from the slope year round. However, depending on the time of year that construction occurs, groundwater seeping from the slope could cause instability and erosion of temporary excavation slopes. In addition, adequate drainage needs to be, provided behind the proposed rockery and east garage wall to intercept subsurface and surface flow. We recommend that the geotechnical report be amended to include recommendations for dealing with this potential groundwater seepage. CONSTRUCTION DRAWINGS We recommend that General Notes on Sheet 1 be amended to reference the February 13, 1993 geotechnical report. Specific recommendations are contained in the geotechnical report regarding temporary excavations slopes and site grading that need to be adhered to by the contractor. An existing storm drain line crosses through the footprint of the proposed residence. To prevent potential differential settlements of foundations, it is important that the existing storm drain line be entirely removed and the resulting excavation backfilled in accordance, with the recommendations contained in the February 13, 1993 geotechnical report. The foundation drain shown on Details 3, 12, 13, and 14 is not consistent with the drain detail shown on Plate 6 of the February 13, 1993 geotechnical report. We recommend that the details be amended so they are consistent with the geotechnical report. STEEP SLOPE AND LAND SLIDE HAZARD Based on our review of the submitted documents, it is our opinion that if construction is performed in accordance with recommendations contained in the February 13, 1993 geotechnical report, as well as recommendations contained in this letter, the geotechnical consultants conclusions regarding short and long. -term slope stability should be valid. CLOSURE Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our geotechnical review of documents submitted to the City of Edmonds for the proposed single family residence was completed in 3 LANDAU ASSOC.fATFS, INC. accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practices in this area at the time this letter was prepared. We make no other warranty either express or implied. Our review comments are relatively minor, and the review of resubmitted items could probably be handled by City staff. However, if questions do arise, please direct them to one of the undersigned at (206) 926-2493.. Thank you for_ the opportunity to be of service to the City of Edmonds on this project. WDE/EJH/djs No. 74067.10 April 21,1997 1:\PROJECT\074\067.10\16123NMR.RVW J El LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC.' By: Edward J. Heavey, P.E. Senior Project Engineer and n William D. Evans, CPG Associate LANDAU ASSOCIATES, INC. • JOHN & LYNNE YOUNG RESIDENR 161XX NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD; EDMONDS, WA. LOT 3; EDMONDS SP # 13-91 APPLICANT/OWNER LIABILITY & LANSDSLIDE ACKNOWLEDGMENT THE APPLICANT/OWNER OF THE PROPERTY DESCRIBED AS LOT 3; EDMONDS SP #13- 91 HEREBY ATTESTS THAT: A) THE ACCURACY OF ALL PERMIT SUBMITTAL INFORMATION IS WARRANTED BY THE APPLICANT/OWNER IN A FORM WHICH RELIEVES THE CITY OF EDMONDS AND ITS STAFF FROM ANY LIABILITY ASSOCIATED WITH RELIANCE ON SUCH PERMIT APPLICATION SUBMITTALS. WHILE AN APPLICATION MAY REFERENCE THE REPORTS OF PRIOR PUBLIC CONSULTANTS TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS, ALL CONCLUSIONS SHALL BE THOSE OF THE APPLICANT/OWNER AND HER/HIS DESIGN PROFESSIONALS (ECDC 19.05.030) AND; B) THAT THE APPLICANT/OWNER UNDERSTANDS AND ACCEPTS THE RISK OF DEVELOPING IN AN AREA WITH POTENTIAL UNSTABLE SOILS AND THAT THEY 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. (ECDC 19.05.040C). DONE THIS Tf/ DAY OF 1997 OWNER(S): BY: BY: BY: STATE OF WASHINGTON ) ss) COUNTY OF Ll ()u Aj G I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that`s L L4!-41 6 WO y L(C signed this instrument and a6mowledged. it to be (his/her) free and voluntary act for the purposes mentioned in this instrument DATED this /0 day of f- AWN , 19� E.A;qr .: ��.• y��aa p fi e,'L `'� NOT Y PUBLIC pTARF i m �My commission expires: 214 h; pupsoo OF 1JL • STRFFT FILE JOHN & LYNNE YOUNG RESIDENCE lki-XX NORTH MEADOWDALE ROAD; EDMONDS, WA /6/Z? LOT 3: EDMONDS SP #13-91 ARCHITECT DECLARATION ARCHITECT: A WALTER ADAMSON 23609 - 97TH PL W EDMONDS, WA 98020 PH: (206) 542-1670 WASHINGTON STATE LICENSED ARCHITECT #2038 TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN; I HAVE REVIEWED GEOTECHNICAL REPORT PREPARED BY GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.; DATED 02/16/93. I UNDERSTAND THE RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE REPORT AND THEY HAVE BEEN INCORPORATED INTO THE DESIGN WITH ESTABLISHED MEASURES TO REDUCE THE POTENTIAL RISK OF INJURY OR DAMAGE FROM ANY EARTH MOVEMENT PREDICTED IN THE REPORT. I HAVE EXPLAINED TO THE OWNER THE RISK OF LOSS DUE TO SLIDES ON THE SITE. SINCERELY; A. WALTER ADAMSON ARCHITECT 205�a, i r —*Xt`ER AOAMSON STATE OF WASNINGTON OtJZt� 41�#�L PERMIT COUNTER Irl- CSt. 199v July 31, 1996 0 . 0 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering John and Lynne Young P.O. Box 1374 Edmonds, WA 98020 Dear Mr. and Mrs. Young: BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR STRF7.7 " /6 /Z3 Am* 1Xma7v`✓d1�1e 14 This letter is in regards to critical areas checklist CA-94-229 and the proposed house for your site at 16123 N.. Meadowdale Road. On July 29, you submitted a -report from Dennis Bruce dated July 16, 1996, a report from Geotech Consultants dated February 16, 1993, and a site plan by Architects Northwest dated February 19, 1996 (see enclosed site plan). The critical areas checklist for this site is number CA-94-229, dated December 9, 1994. At the timeit was written, the Critical Areas Ordinance was stricter than it is today, and designated anything on a slope of30 percent or more as a critical area.. Because you are submitting your plans now, the current regulations which apply to your project define a site with a slope of 40 percent or greater as a critical area. The critical areas checklist also identifies the lot as being within the designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area. Checking the site plan, which shows topography and is stamped by a licensed surveyor, the slope appears to be approximately 25 percent around where the house will be located, and gets no steeper than approximately 35 percent on the area that slopes up off the lot in.the northeast comer. The corner of the house is at least 65 feet from the edge of where topography is shown, so the house maintains at least the required 50 foot buffer and 15 foot building setback from any potential steep slopes not shown on the map. The site is also in the earth subsidence landslide hazard area. For sites with less than a 40 percent slope, a geologist or geotechnical engineer is required to state how the proposed development meets the provisions in ECDC 20.15B.110.C. The report by Dennis Bruce dated July 16, 1996, addresses these provisions to my satisfaction. Therefore, the placement of the single-family residence, as shown on the site plan by Architects Northwest, dated February 19, 1996, (copy enclosed) is granted a "conditional waiver". The • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • . Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan F C B 1 8 ?997 PERMIT COUNTFR John and Lynne Young July 31, 1996 Page 2 conditions of the conditional waiver are as follows: 1. The house shall be constructed in the exact location shown on Site Plan by Architects Northwest; dated February 19, 1996. 2. The house shall be constructed in accordance with the recommendations of the February 16, 1993 Geotech Report and the July 16, 1996 Dennis Bruce Report and on -site inspections by Dennis Bruce. 3. The house shall be constructed in compliance with the City of Edmonds approved plans and code requirements. Any future development proposed for this site will be reviewed on a case -by -case basis to determine if it complies with the critical areas ordinance in ECDC Chapter 20.15B. All development will also require an Environmental Checklist since the site is listed as environmentally sensitive on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. Sincerely, M.E. eg Gruwell Code Enforcement Officer Enc. cc: CA-94-229 Jeannine Graf, Building Official t PERMIT COUNTER T_ • TY COPY Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer July 16, 1996 City of Edmonds � 250 5th Avenue N. _ Edmonds, WA 98020 Attn: Building Department Subject: Geotechnical Assessment 16123 N. Meadowdale Road Proposed John & Lynne Young Residence Lot #3, Short Plat #5-13-91 This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical assessment of 16123 N. Meadowdale Road, Edmonds, Washington. This lot is currently not developed and is proposed to have a single family residence situated similar to the existing homes in the area. References: • Project Plans by Architects Northwest dated May 29, 1996 • Topographic Site Plan by Continental Engineering dated February 19, 1996 • Geotechnical Engineering Study by Geotech Consultants dated Feb. 16, 1993 for Lot #3 Short Plat #5-13-91 • Site Photographs Background: This property consists of, approximately 0.46 acres on the north side of N. Meadowdale Road. This lot has not been developed, but is adjacent to other existing residences. The proposed building location is on the essentially flat part of the lot. The extreme rear (north/northeast) portion of the lot contains gentle slopes (approximately 7(H):1(V) that contain mature trees. No grading or construction is proposed on or near the rear slopes. The garage and driveway will be constructed furthest to the rear on slopes of 10 percent. SOILS • FOUNDATIONS • SITE DEVELOPMENT • INSPECTION • DRAINAGE • DESIGN & PERMIT • LEGAL 17814 8th Ave. N.W. - Seattle, Washington 98177 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442 r� • Assessment: A complete geotechnical engineering study was performed for this lot by Geotech Consultants, Inc. dated February 16, 1993. The recommendations of this study concluded "...construction of a house on conventional foundations on this lot is feasible from a geotechnical engineering viewpoint... Localized slope failure on or near this lot is not anticipated and it is our opinion that no special construction techniques are required for the construction of this house." After performing additional geotechnical investigation Slin June and July of 1996... this engineer agrees. This engineer has discussed the findings of the February 16, 1993 Geotech Consultants, Inc. report with James R. Finley, Jr., P.E. and expressed concurrence with the conclusion. Geotech Consultants agreed to having D. Bruce, P.E. follow through on this project with the permit/construction phase of the Young's residence. Conclusion/Recommendations: The proposed Young single family residence i constructed in accordance with the recommendations Geotech Report, on -site inspections by this engineer, Edmonds approved plans and requirements. Statement of Minimal Risk: s geotechnically viable when of the February 16, 1993 and compliance with City of The plans and specifications submitted to City of Edmonds have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the development.to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal. 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 2 than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. DMB:njt ExPiRF-s 12/23/ 14 g Sincerely, Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical/Civil Engineer 16 1 J'T 6 3 +:. • �� _ , M1 1 � Y City of. Edmond RIGHT-OF-WAY° CONSTRUCTION fnC. 1.g9U PERMIT Permit Number: 91 - ri Issue Date:—!�' A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: 1(0I Z 3 �.M E. A DaI.J to A L E KD B. Type of Work (be specific): 1'1 "N C K K / O A N 1% Ig O R 1L '9 p AN FOP uG PR1MARy f0WEZ w C. Contractor: J N o Co. 'y. D• Contact: _ n g L A X A L E Y Mailing Address: 21 O A S u) Y q Phone: —S a Tp - 3 Z( q State License #: D M o D LJ A q 8OZ L Liability Insurance: Bond: $ D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Uiility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family Single Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: a F. Pavement or Concrete Cut :'. ❑Yes o " G. Size of Cut: x H. Cha4ge $ APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL IA'SPEC- TION 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 Two sets of construction drawings of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection. Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material -is to be inspected during progress and at compl tip Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. 1 Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety"shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS.' 1 have read the above statements and understand the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will_ bey available on site at all times for inspection purposes.. �� Signature: /� Date: 7 Z 1 (Contractor Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY TIME AUTHORIZED- VOID AFTER i1t] IS DAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: WCWI:�� U 4 l9 4 C k d vt 4t ✓�1 RIGHT OF WAY FEE: 30 DISRUPTION FEEIFUND 111: RESTORATION FEE: T OTAL FEE: ,fib RECEIPT NO.: ISSUED BY NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div 1997 SNOHOMMIISHnCOUNTY A _�. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO I LAYOUT LEGEND 0 PADMOUNT TRANSFORMER Q SECONDARY PEDESTAL PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CABLE - - - - - - - - 4/0 SECONDARY UNDERGROUND CABLE --0-POLE AND OVERHEAD LINE - - PROPERTY LINE - RIGHT-OF-WAY LINE SCHEMATIC LEGEND: 10 TRANSFORMER ��- FUSE PRIMARY UNDERGROUND CABLE OVHD EXISTING OVERHEAD TRANSFORMER A- 2 8 4 2 2 15 KVA 7200-120/240V DIST L- -X SER MAKE VAULT BY PUD A-28422 42" x 42" x 30" OPEN BOTTOM W/A 21" x 25" ACCESS HOLE 16123 I / I �J LAYOUT 1" = 30' CABLE 307' OF (1) 02 AL CNCTRC NEUT DB JCKTD PRI IN 2" PVC MAKE PO REEL 15' OF 4/0 AL TRX DB SEC IN 3" PVC DUCT �A 119' OF 2" PVC (W/ 28' SIDEWALK/ROAD BORE) BY PUD 0 158' OF 2" PVC BY CUSTOMER A-28422 L- -X SCHEMATIC NTS LOCATION 16123 N MEADOWDALE RD, EDMONDS 98026 AREA SO COUNTY POLE NO GCI-24 SE 1/4S 5 T 27 R 4 DATE 6/24/96 WO NO S34 REASON FOR WORK PROVIDE 10 PRIMARY ENGINEER KAKALEY DWG NO 120338 UNDERGROUND SERVICE FOR DRAFTER JCL UGND NO 9277 JOHN YOUNG APPROVED SCALE NOTED GAS PRINTED DATE WORK COMPLETED FOREMAN ENVIRONMENTAL ANALYSIS SUBSTATION MEADOWDALE FEES R E Q 1 D ® YES ❑ NO ® EXEMPT PARA. 18 ❑ NOT EXEMPT ITEM C CIRCUIT NO 12-1840 PHASE 2 OVHD CONDUCTOR KV� ROAD CROSSINGS ONLY APPR DATE DESCRIPTION REVISIONS APPR I NO. I DATE DESCRIPTION AS -BUILT APPR I NO. I DATE DESCRIPTION PRIMARY OVERHEAD ❑ RESIDENTIAL ADD CKT FT PH ❑ COMMERCIAL REM CKT FT PH LEO# NET CKT FT @ $ $ UGND CONDUCTOR 7.2 KV PRIMARY UNDERGROUND ADD 277 CKT FT 1 PH ® RESIDENTIAL REM CKT FT PH ❑ COMMERCIAL BASIC FEES 975.00 NET 277 CKT FT PERMITS (DATE GRANTED) LEU# 158' $ 4.65 /'_ $ 734.70 ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ STATE SECONDARY UNDERGROUND BASIC FEE S ❑ COUNTY ❑ EDMONDS UNDERGROUND PLAT BASIC FEE S EASEMENTS ®REQUIRED ENGINEERING E# ❑ NOT REQUIRED tFT@S =S DATE SENT TO R/W PLAT CONSTRUCTION t FT @ S = $ DATE APPROVED STREET LIGHTING FOREIGN CONTACTS t FT @ S = S ❑ GTNW JPN# CROSSINGS ❑ CATV JPN# (IL FT @ S = $ C1 JOINT 'FRENCH GTNW & CATV 0 JOINT BORE GTNW & CATV WORK IN RIGHT OF WAY ® PRIMARY ❑ POLE STENCILING ❑ SECONADARY 77 FT @ 56.10 = S 469.70 FROM TO TAKE OFF POLE MISCELLANEOUS FEES VAULT S PRE-CONSTR REQUIREMENTS PERMIT S 30.00 ❑ TREE TRIM ❑ PUD LOCATOR S ® BACKHOE ❑ S ® ONE CALL DATE S # INDEX POLES PLAT TOTAL DUE S 2,209.40 LOGS U-MAP DATE PAID _ XFMR C-MAP GIS RECEIPT# LOCATION MAP PAGE 435,B7 NEW SVCE APPLICATION# 263514 ENGINEER ROBERT KAKALEY CUSTOMER JOHN YOUNG XING PRINTED PHONE (206)670-3214 PHONE (206)546-0179 PRINTED PAGER/ PAGER/ CELLULAR 787-7523 CELLULAR VICINITY MAP TAGS VAULT: A-28422 CABLE: 54111 0 0 i -- -City of Edmonds.. RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Permit Number. 9 - l "7U Issue Date: 9 v y.. A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: p B. Type of Work (be specific): l LQ N 0 n 189 l600AE S160, aF CQM) SWAk C. Contractor: �D�A �•� • 60�" [Gc Contact: A." Mailing Address: Q•[Z. �jd� �..� ��,f�whone: i, Z State License #: ►�ae�eSjS' Litili In ce: 166 Bond: $ (a,n60 � • G P 2oµ?b�o� D. Building.Permit # (if applicable): -027D5 SS Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. ❑ Commercial , ❑ Subdivision ❑ City Project ❑ Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) ❑ Multi -Family ingle Family ❑ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: ! F. Pavement or Concrete Cut : es ❑No G. Size.of Cut:. w 1 x _ It, Cliarge� 12 g 33 APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY.- Applicant understands and by his signature to this application to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and attorney fees by reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OP ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPEC- TION 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. Two sets of construction drawings of proposed work required with permit application. i A 24 hour notice is required for inspection. Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. ;Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Sfreet shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I have read the above statements and and the permit requirements and the pink copy of the permit will be available on sit a 1 times for in cti p r oses. Signature: Date % T (Con ractor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVED BY: TIMEAUTHORIZED: VOIDAFTER Door, I DAYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: W D k! i y w&4 L A U tan /.... Ad./ A'., v I I Act 1—, M_.f1'.,w .I , 1,,. . / (Vot7at ( 17Y 1 � RIGHT OF WAY FEE: 3,, 0 DISRUPTION FEE/FJ.UD I 1 I: 1 - RESTORATION FEE: GGI20 3 T OTAL FEE: ! 5, 9 3 RECEIPT NO.: ISSUED BY a NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Eng. Div 1997 CITY OF EDMONDS = COMMUNITY. SERVICES•,, . - DATE: L -s Received of: LAddress:. 6 2.3 .1v �tUW.: ! . •Phone•;-•" Project Location:�a��l� � ..... tiv y N. .,;. .SA .�;� :.�'.`',����"• Check No. Cash Total Received: Water Meter Size: W TJ x Amounkt s Water Connection Fee Sewer Permit/Repair'. Trunk Charge Sewer Connection/LID Fee R/W Construction Permit Fee* 9 "� — 1 !7' .. O :33 Street Cut/Restoration Fee 620 Fund Street Disruption Fee 111' Fund - ? 5 Engineering 2.2% Inspection Fee - :Engineering S ecs & Plans Fee Storm Drainage Fee Street Use Permit Building Permit Fee - Type Plan Check Fee . State Surcharge 622_Fund =_ Zoning Application Fee - Type Shoreline Permit Fee SEPA Review Fee Recording Fee —Maps/Books Photocopies i Traffic Mitigation Fee -Sidewalk Contribution > Received by: Permit No. -_.-- r 1 • eq Will 1111111111111111111111111 C� s� ® Return Address: City of Edmonds City Clerk 121 5th Avenue No. Edmonds, WA 98020 1707160502 07/16/97 14:57 p.0001 Recorded Snohomish County STATEMENT ON ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address: J&1,25 A)az;H 774/ h jQ12 Edmonds, Washington BUILDING AUG — 9 1997 Legal Description: A-.oT -663 L-z- -L 541-d-- Pam.$, ` 5-J,71 Assessor's Parcel Number: .1 have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained in Chapter 20.21. of the Edmonds Community Development Code and understand that an accessory dwelling unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for two years after occupancy by the current owner (unless a waiver is granted by the Community Services Department) and until after a conditional use permit has been approved by thg City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner. I also understand that approval of a conditional use permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a building permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a conditional use permit. Property Owner Signature: -- 1�_J , P , Date: 2 _ STATE OF WASHINGTON ) : , •�{ �7 u +a ,r . N COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH );•idly; I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that�'�— _�,'� ••'' •��•''��.<.• signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and voluntary act for the uses and Sftll mentioned in this instrument. Notary's pressure seals must be smudged. Dated: .5 •,,,9 - 17 Signature of Notary Public: Residing at: My Appointment Expires: THIS DOCUMENT MUST BE RECORDED WITH THE SNOHOMISH COUNTY AUDITOR. N 1707160502 `07/ 16 / 9 7 14 5.7- p.0001 Recorded Snohomish County 1� C� Return Address: City of Edmonds City Clerk 121 5th Avenue No. Edmonds, WA 98020 STATEMENT ON' ACCESSORY DWELLING UNITS Property Address:. 1&t2.5 /0az-714V g4hew_�� P , Edmonds, Washington BUILDING AUG - 8 1997 Legal Description: f.,oT 663 C' 54-d - PA& #Sd Assessor's Parcel Number: I have read the requirements for accessory dwelling units contained. in Chapter 20.21 of the Edmonds Community Development Code and. understand that an accessory dwelling unit, including a second kitchen, is prohibited for two years after occupancy by the current owner (unless a waiver is granted by the Community Services Department) and until after a conditional use permit has been approved by thg City of Edmonds Hearing Examiner. I also .understand that approval of a conditional use permit is subject to a public hearing, and neither this statement nor the issuance of a building permit shall act to limit the discretion of the City in the review of any application for a conditional use. permit. Property Owner. Signature: Date: V h�utaluup„� STATE OF WASHINGTON ) K }� w'yl��rj ��►-`. COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH ) . ~ �� ;` �VS,O tt I certify that I know or have satisfactory evidence that signed this instrument and acknowledge it to be his/her free and -voluntary act for the uses and:P'iiJ 4 mentioned in this instrument. Notary's pressure seals must be smudged. Dated: Signature of Notary Public; CITY OF EDMONDS USE PERMIT ZONE .5- 2p NUMBER 9 70555 I CONSTRUCTION' PERMIT APPLICATION Job sul E/APTa ADDRESS 161,23 1*e f�. �%I,4e1, flq �„_ J / / WNER-NAMEiNAME OF BUSINESS - ��� LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION N//O..Ili S-13- LID NQ) w MAILING ADDRESS �� / / �) i m • O r .0, bo 1 7 TESCP Approved ❑ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. 0 RW Permit Required ❑ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER — EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION /�• (%t� Street Use Permit Req'd ❑ Inspection Required O (0//!'U ^0PROPOSED Sidewalk Required ty cc NAME'. Q,ve -'909 3 \�� j METE SIZE 3 'y LINE JI E / / NO. OF FIXTURES 2— uj PRV REOUIRED ❑ 3 yVj ADDRESS,- --' , Q.,r. YE NO C7 U , Pt ` REMARKS ) / r''tr ���. •1 I'J J--y� IN r l ✓, tl ) r +��t+ Z ! cc CITY— '-.-r- ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER 0 2 ' 676 a .' ,I NAM�`E:),.:.;...,;.: .. Dp``l 1.VQJ� S►7Ul.aLt1 C�(i(%��iry 1 U ��+��'r ; ) : J n k .�G I �/ C✓ H.I a Nr ►v L. _� I') �r.• M f . li ADDRE S' '.' . ; .:. ' rq ENGINEERING MEMO DATED R VIEWED BY U`' ` KJ CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER o_ �� '� 14 079 FIRE MEMO DATED REVIEWED BY U STATE LICEN E NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE � . f ' ��D�, ( SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW �� r -+ A08 N0. ":.Legal Desdription.of Property - include all easements ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT _ zz ; r' ' G �' O rp w "- - /�, 1 l P10iAJ (L SHORELINE M ', EXP 3,UA71166 VARIANCE OR CU PLANNING REVIEW . •` r BY DATE \ {o pmau or- t AZG( 50 9 * T .... Q / 1/(,Y.. $ L faj �jJj�p 1 SETBACKS — FEET HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE f. , ..- iJrui Property '. FRONT �C}� SID& Sjr REAR 5' 7_Gj t�-7 ••� •TeX ACCOUDt / � — -0 ,` 3L REMARKS Parcel No. , (� PEW....RESIDENTIAL © PLUMBING/MECH )LIANCE A-W a " comf ORf El � ADDITION, .. : COMMERCIAL CHANGE OF USE ..: �E] 'APT. BLDG.. a, L:J REMODEL ON a (�%j GRADING FENCE REPgIR LAI CVDS. (_ x CHECK�,D BY (�t7T� TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE GOCCUPANT ROI� Q _FT) WOODST�OVE ; �, . $WIM➢OOL SERT HOT TUB/SPA' r ,l J SPECIAL INSPECTOR a-• REQUIRED ARE r �' •�• - - Z -� OCCUPANT ,DEMOLISH ....F.-TIN GARAGE RETAINING WALL) . � RENEWAL YES LOAD MARKS '. r f 1/�IA'r • . ROCKERY PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108 V (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: W NUMBER '"� % NUMBER OF CRITICAL ,,II ! � 7Neii i/9L OeA -s o C OF_$ , STORIES Al N DWELLING UNITS ' AREAS A!' NUMBER W- Z S' i � /.,t,,{� oaei �dY 1�7e vreey ~,tg47*✓TS . DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) U t!'A Cv _. Uxi FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED r' �0 �y� �O c. +/[PDT/ VALUATION FEE LOT' LOPE D°o PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE: GLAZING BUILDING 7-5 /34 U 0 /0 733. PLUMBING Plan Check NO. :7 — MECHANICAL 47 GRADINGIFILL 314 This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY. '•Any construction on the public domain (curls, sidewalks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE � Aer, -© ' Permit Application: 180 Days Permit r LIMIL.1 Year Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE '1 U ."Applicant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENO. INSPECTION FEE (� U) successors 'in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold W harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, O /1 /� e 2-employees, and agents from any -and all claims for damages Of C a = whatever nature; arising directly or indirectly from the issuance PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT of this, permit.. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to jz!z0f,modify,•waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinanceinor limit in anyway the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I.hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that h t information given'is correct; and that I am the owner, or the doll ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city aqd( THIS PERMIT "stale laws;rpgulating construction; and in doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIzes This a pP lication is not a permit until ed..theretiy, no person will be emplPXed)in violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of�Wshington rellatfp.fo Workmen's Compensa-, WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is :tion.Insuranoe end RCW 18.27. INSPECTION' acknowledged in space provided. REIOWNER OR AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT ,..-.,Y. I� CITY OF of I IAL'S SI GNATURE57 �J DATE J�/[IJ.I /`t EDMONDS ATTENTION... CALL FOR INSPECTION RELEASED. DATE J: IT IS.,UNL'AWFUL .TO USE'OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL. A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771 0220 ORIGINAL File YELLOW Inspector — — A' CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 . Q� `y '--PINK —Owner GOLD —Assessor c� z_ z z J a a z 0 m DRAINAGE PLAN Surface water on the property and surrounding properties is to the north and west. A water course flows X P fZ �- (� G- S v (L S northwest through the northern portion of lot 4 and empties into z, existing catch basin (# 1). From catch basin (# 1) a storm drain extends northwest through the central portion of lot 3 (the proposed building site), to second E-X PO (LTD 50 ► LS 5 µ A LL GE R. G M o V E 0 t h b ' ca #2 1 ed c asln ( ), ocat on the northern boundaryof lot 3. The flow of water is then diverted to the public r-RoM SITE *r- E )(c 4 V A--r , ,j-J,' <' systems via a catch basin located on N. Meadowdale Rd. Flow o!'water is intermittent during periods of dry 01351T'iN A+-TI o .J WILL BE " P,4c, F I c To a .50IL s" weather, and steady during rain fall. 7-ME D£5 T I AI , -ri O N 5 g o v i_ d c W At £, A• W R,I TCl�AJ L_E 77EtZ 50OVI-0 /,3e PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM A-N D .4PPIZOVE p <3 Y T NE SS V 1 LDi�(r-zNSPeeTa2, IL F�►+.r INL -r 11_TF l F.F Z�lt4' UJILE M959 r STAKE ►� �'��` r>; FILTr#LFABR1 Arg AED 6-ZAVEL Installation of two additional (#3 & #4) catch basins (type 1L, CB 16), see plan for locations. The FuL rf kED WATEQ• existing storm drain which crosses between CB #1 to CB#2 will be abandoned and capped. CB #1 and CB #2 ' t� rt> - �. B. .: will remain to collect surface waters. Water flows from CB # 1 wail be diverted to CB #3. Water flows from J/ , CB#2 will continue to flow to the public systems. STREET The proposed residence includes apx. 4066 square feet of irnpermeable surface area including the - g' P4 residence, deck systems and driveway. A Standard Drainage Detention System can be used, including 18" cpm 65 feet in length pipe, gth with a 7/8" outlet, subsequently tightlined to the public storm drain in N. Meadowdale Road Roof drains, as located on the Drainage Plan, shall be tighfined to CB #3, Roof drains shall not be I r 2 -� �/ E N piped into footing drains. Roof drains or footing drains shall not to connected to the sanitary sewer. 22 A N 22OFf-F Xti EROSION CONTROL, Temporary erosion control shall be installed, inspected an6 approved prior to any construction or site clearing. Erosion control shall consist of a Filter Fabric Fence (F.I.F., detail on Drainage Plan) placed at the F, F, F :r'sys�'�, , 0S, N • northern portion of the lot. In addition, each C.B. shall be protecte3 by a F.F.F. only allowing filtered water to % %�,, i c+ ,rp♦ ACCEPTA8L6 TICyT� l I y enter into the drains stem. Clean and monitor F.F.F.ail work and after each rain fall. 5� g Y duin s( gite ) - 'Z E � f'r� ° a ry S1V- 72 AOS,AL 40 PVC ch 2 • 2 1 Eroe 0 �r ti S 4� AJ IT NIP (0 ru Rf 'a airj f�,�v Vero @ C, H 0 to / in rn it) Ac •' 2 30 22 • INN N L ems. E` 'ram✓ ♦ J 3.L,..,,,' Mp a r NE \�Q0�US ►..!' / ?P,e ` ZpO / z - I �► a� o - co^„•Qo� a, I �, 30� �RoT��T \.j, ���o� ' . �1' V r . , Q, en � Z oG�'��''S�Y �- c9 cs,� s�I RFTE E `� �, d, % ' v°0`'� �dc '` / M 2' • • ; �• = b y F�• _ �� opt zNsr,� wi F, ro ose 2� �, 226 -- I ^ aJ . o��-EUT, t - T`UV, ' F _ , `� a rest e e ,� �1. /lC" 1 /� •,• p �Lp pE F w ,g,• rH�S , •�. .L0 N I F� k oe ttir P46G- ' oq Soo .� / / / CD �... `-"�/'' - 'ue M S ;10'n \ i''` ` • .�+-�~ rCL o a / o 1 x 23Q --._.� 'V 0 �4 , ,yti vi2IVe.wA`i i / • 1 •CDPROPERTY DESCf�TPTION: . \ � c�'`o - 40 LOT 3 CITY OF EaMONDS - T. IT SHORT PLAT NO. S-J3-91. �49 RECOAOEO UNDER • "�' �• RECORDING NO 9].0331o03a. RECORDS O- SNOHOMISN%COUNTY. w�4SHINGTON � ,' �• :; / M Containing20 042 5 Ft - 0 4 �,' , a 6 4CreS — �. , 0 REFERSANITARY CITI OF EDMONDS DATUM. BER-*11 MARK USED BEING THE INVERT OF THE / o� � I /� � _.?,� � . � ,�.' � Z�� APPROVED SEWER MANHOLE AS SHOWN HEREaa L ELEVATION - 209. 52 FEET. �0 �'' ,� AS I ntour Inter va: - c 9-eet I�RAI�TAGE,' PLAN 2 ' - / LEGEND: , � ,I / scale: 1" - 10' - 0 Found Reba- ►+i :r• Cap (Group Fcu Set Rebb- L., Car, No.85EE CG I-i G�J�t-�I �Q T C, L note: » trees existing/to be cut on ' A i 24, Iv' -���S M,, �G ,� subject property a� a � o �, c VJ 174054' .a,v, u i�v�t � G t2.�►�t7t✓= 22 9 , 8 c�' �,�,� ,:�° " O ���.oa MAX, t2�cre(•r2S'��2�[1,eo ' U.;^�- �' R CONTINENTAL EN�: Co. PREPARED FOR .,��/Z,3 t pt2oP�� I 2 I EXPIRES 12/23/ j rt4i'� .4' ' 10007 GREENWOOD AV � �• Y� E . N , EVE;�GREEN -HOMES IN_ P.O. eox 133725 �t'1T. G 2'Z'> .15 r 70 22°},1�1 SEATTLE WA , 98133 DEN • BY X.C.O.DATE JOB ;. `1 V' 2-19-96 - �,• -(Ct _ q t, 12061 783-7177 CHKD . BY SCALE ' PL # 5 F.W.H. 1' 10• SHEE j lu>�71,4 oS -- 1 _ 226 a s -� ` -�----"'SF'NdL1': oil 4" CRUSHEb 2ockc___ �__-` ,� •tt �� , •-— LOPE p ! QT ,t �' , c t t �'I d ems.`'; `a. _ - -- - _ ..- - '` 1•--..._.. ..___. _•_• - -_p �'�--'I'h --- - --- ---• - /' �. 1 CL - c L ` ' J -.. _ -,i% t ! = 1 i � t '�7SI 'ice , - ' - --- . •.. _ ,, � i � a Ll1JSO V� --- -- - Q ! ' � 'Y f . � ! j f1 ��. ^i. `. "Y\�Z _- ,'V fj�• .` , � l. , f - / / \ � ��7j. ' �- • 230 ' . / d I f ! r l a • 1 1 2 ,{� ! h ' e �+ ` 10 rz 41 0 PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: ' ' c'`r 2� h �o ,,'�LJ Z. / ' / Z1 - 2 .C.T Ci T � � : - .► 11 Cf!�•1 T F�►� T f':: S-1 J-n1. r'F �.��t' EL �)'� t+'. H: i.Ll•.': Nu (V_ ..`L J,1'_. RECORD- Cl� SN-'? CMi1S: -- 021�7 1', m Containing 20. C�4D Sc Ft. - 0.46 Acres — c:j/ d✓ �/ /- 0 ELEVATIONS: REPEh TO CITY C: Fph:Dt;p5 D1.TU1', BEItiCF' h't,R�; USED BEI�', INVERT OF THE S«,t:, , ARY SEh=N 1•'.:•!;�i�. c AS SHOkti HEREON . E�EV�.TIO 202. Eic FEE1 Contour Interval- < < Feet +�' / ,,1 2 'O LEGEND: so 2.11an scale: T' =10' - 0', Found Reba- With Cap (Group Four? }f//'' ��,jj'(" ' I -•�' �` O Set Reba- 1 a tr) L:, Cap N0.856E DRAWR M3LX DATE 9.2 o I �4PPROVED BY PLANNING � � �0 ���� G2•P\t�E= ' 4`� _ f `0 CONTINENTAL ENG . CO. PREPARED FOR 4 �$ '��6 10007 GREENWOOD AVE. N. EVERGREEN HOMES INC. �oP�✓� �21�E�2�j4•,�� � P.O. BOX f33725 r°tD, MAIN. r1�2'yj2.83l DWN. BY DATE JOB N0. ' �,�D t�'t1?, G� 223 ,? � To•22�,��j ,. � V_ tl SEATTLE WA.98133 k.C.o. 2-19-96 96007 12061 763-7177 CHKD. BY SCALE SHEET P S F.W.H. 1' � 10' 1 OF 1 ' m 1 ST,Rr-CT S Ak) 1 Z5 u q .---5c) S�i� Her6��i 11 DRAINAGE PLAN Surface water on the property and surrounding I -- P PertY g properties is to the north and west. A water course flows E— A p O 2 T l h1 G-- S v j L S northwest through the northern portion of lot 4 and empties into a existing catch basin (# 1). From catch basin • (# 1) a storm drain extends northwest through the central portion of lot 3 (the proposed building site), to second £•x PO fLrFD Sv ► Ls SHALL GE r2E M 0 V F_ 0 ' L _ �'� r>`• F.► n,. Ft` w1r r�'r--+��- P. F. F • catchbasin (#2), located on the northern boundary of lot 3. The flow of water is then diverted to the public Row+ SITE A•T E x c •a v a-r i d �.► � .� � xy" �� ws+l C` sT�►ICE RECEIVED ' • systems via a catch basin located on N. Meadowdale Rd. Flow of water is intermittent during periods of dry OEs-r•r..) A-T) 0 ,v w, LL ZE " P.qc) F J c r0 P so IL S" Z W '� i'eS ' weather, and steady during rain fall. z>- TN E DES T) N A-T) o N s � o v t, ►, c � �' E, F►Lr�rlF,a,�Q► �R MAY - E 1997 <1• (u 21 Tien! LE nE2 sl1 ovLQ �3e 5 E.�r-r-; , A13FIE0 (r-QALERi�i� COUNTER , PROPOSED DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND 14PP20VE ID G Y 7-746- G V 1 LDi�JG• rNsPeeT02, UNTE � Installation of two additional #3 & #4 catch basins �.'� F=tTEQED rVATEQ, ( ) (type 1L, CB 16), see plan for locations. The existing storm drain which crosses between CB # 1 to CB#2 will be abandoned and capped. CB # 1 and CB #2 . Y will remain to collect surface waters. Wager flows from CB # 1 will be diverted to CB #3. Water flows from / / - _ G • B, 0 ' CB#2 will continue to flow to the public systems. The proposed residence includes apx. 4066 square feet of impermeable surface area including the M� 1 residence, deck systems and driveway,' A Standard Drainage Detention System can be used, including I a, cpm • / E!�` ' 65 feet in length / I . ,,.. pig, gth with a 7/8 outlet, subsequently tightlined te, the public storm drain in-N. Meadowdale • Road Roof drains, as located on the Drainage Plan, shall be tightlined to CB #3. Roof � drains shall not be piped into footing drains. Roof drains or footing drains shall not be connected to the sanitary sewer. Z • E N — 220 F .F� EROSION CONTROL 4 Temporary erosion control shall be installed, inspected and approved prior to any construction or site Eft` i2" ;�.." 0, N� clearing. Erosion control shall consist of a Filter Fabric Fence (F.F.F., detail on Drainage Plan) placed at the I O pu4 F, F• F �}•%, Sys' ts. N northern portion of the lot. In addition, each C.B. shall be protectel by a F.F.F. only allowing filtered water to ' ' • • enter into the drainage system. Clean and monitor F.F.F. daily (dwing site work) and after each rain fall. 5m 04 � IL • Iro =J Z 94ov e r ti S q, N 4 @ 1, V&V, in M in ' •• ►• s �' \Q'Z�' ,� tC �' till . t o a I f trD�tC �S a 22 oa • crl Iry I � 22 A ok X Ile, 00 __ ! I. •r `' • d _ r 3•.._ EL. (ta Zd'`a `\ /! �c° ,�, i / ` p0 0 1` a� O r, p d? t' co^4i11.ego` L, 1 TI .�i0'' �RorFc� ,l, �`� L'( /� v//��� , a, ; ► •' ` ''" O c K1 h• n2 Z I �, SAYt S '4�TE E�IJ C i v e' d�a /,p :`iours t U OSe ?26 ifs t Q - ,Q . _.._._. ____ _ , .,ozzralu �o t - _... ..... .. ?'`°'�, OEr a resIG7 7i N P ,v .41 �'� 4a ''' g / (� �Lp p� )p9 . Fo ,E �bf, L TH�g .. `"` V�' c. '(� r►}�• '==J ; •s Z,sibN 1 o e y .s MR try bif'\ UQ of IL J 01 ._ Ir 2 2� •� � ,� c�° "'�'�,. moo,/ ,��/, n, K /I 23Q 'V D121VSWAi; ' / 0 ACCEp-rAe• 1 I � � S / 210, 2 . � -� N-1,? ,q LINE MATE � `' `c ' � - a �.• •�/ / � ; • APPROVED AS MOILBch 2 D IAA ! ,y�' , �� ,o �' `i 3 /. ! Z ,,,,' (���'�j ��0�•� � 4�/' .;cam• � � ./ a • 2 0 STR EE FILE - 0 PROPERTY DEWUPTION: 300 41 --G� N ♦ ,t•• eb LOT 3 CITY OF EDMONDS StiONT PLAT M�. S-0-91. S C01�0 T k RE EO VNOER r-•- RECORDING NO 93-03310033. AECOADS 0= SNOHOMISH/COUNTY. WASHINGTON p M Containing Zo 042 Sa Ft. - 0.46 Acres ._ G or 72 0 _ >,c' ova { D AEFEP% TO CITY OF EpMORDS DATUM. SEN.'H K `//� �� • �, ti / / hQ' ' [� MAR USED BEING THE INVERT Of THE v / / Z'• . • SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AS SHOWN HERk:CN• ELEVATION = 203.52 FEET. '' •' �0 /'• ,' •'�' / / /% •tour Irte�va: - c &eet '� / 11 - --.•.•... _ ._. -_.... _.. .... , . 123, / / / , , , to ; / / j •� 5 LEGEND: _ RAINA T PLAN scale: 1" : 10, 0., Z. ' J Found Rcbe^ hi ,l-• Cep (Group Fcu^? 16 I I ' Set Rebs^ hi;^ l.. Cap ►Jo.@5SE ��t"1� C,, I...GUI.,•1�'Y�O��, / note: �o tree - M. 4s exlsting/to be Cut on subject property • � � t22 -1, 80' �ti boy ""a�wo G� ?Gi/�L, of I .2 D 1/ I 17405 I � V•' MA)(, 12,ccW42. --!Z54,ec ,►,.E ,� :;r;� C. CONTINENTEN....I PREPARED FOR .• �t i;o - _ ( AL CO p1�vP�� �21c 2.g41 GJ 1 EXPIRES�j2/23/ `�`j_! ,1t • J 10007 GREENWOOD AVE. N I rWr0Q,5,e_v, r1AiN. �t�2'�2.$31 .� P.O. eox ,33725 EVERGREEN -HOMES INC • G,f— Praff T FILE 16 1Z/fs4� ED MAY - 8 19,97 ?EWT COUNTER it 226 0 Ln C-) C: 0 Cr 0. CD 222 1A 4 224 CD 0 co L 226 z E31 U, Z.- Y, Ln 7055 m 0 0 m :13 0 0 N 36 * 244-1 81.81 ss" !Eyl PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: 010 40-�0 1 1.6 r� LOT 3, CITY OF EDMONDS SHORT PLAT NO. S-13-91, AS RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO. 9203310033, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON. Containing 20,042 Sq. Ft. — 0.46 Acres ELEVATIONS: REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS DATUM, BENCH MARK USED BEING THE INVERT OF THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AS SHOWN HEREON. ELEVATION = 209.52 FEET. Contour Interval = 2 Feet LEGEND: (D Found Rebar With Cap [Group Four] 0 Set Rebar With LS Cap No.8566 —220 222 —0 0 ---230 — 23 -3ro zzo ---- 2z'a r- I 2r• / 1 ti CD 0 0- A ,No 0 qP / te z 8 1 16 123 /VOAV%- -1 A - 4 bm & Iten V1�C 11/u\V 1LCll\ , Proposed residence will be constructed on a vacant lot, the only existing utilities are two catch basins (CB #1 & CB #2) and the storm drain which connects them to the public system at N. Meadowdale Road. Please see the DRAINAGE PLAN for further details pertaining to these C.B.s. Please note that no trees greater than 8 inches in diameter exist on the building lot. All Grading shall conform to the fill and cut standards of UBC 7009-10. Details concerning existing soils and soils conditions are in the enclosed soils report. Construction Access shall be via an existing graveled easement located to the southern portion of lot 3. Stockpiled soils shall be stored on the flat western section of lot 3, and shall be covered by 6 mil poly. Stockpiled soils shall not exceed 10' in height. Soils used for backfill must be inspected and approved by the soils engineer. See soils report. Excavations will require the exportation of native soils. Destination of excavated soils must be approved by building inspector prior to the start of any site work. EROSION CONTROL Temporary erosion control shall be installed, inspected and approved prior to any construction or site clearing. Erosion control shall consist of a Filter Fabric Fence (F.F.F., detail on Drainage Plan) placed at the northern portion of the lot. In addition, each C.B. shall be protected by a F- .F. only allowing filtered water to enter into the drainage system. Clean and monitor F.F.F. daily (during site work) and after each rain fall. GRADING CALCULATIONS The initial cut for the foundation/basement is the length of the structure (56') by the width (32') and _ depth (95). This cut will be made into a gentle to modest slope. Total cubic yards of soils removed is 433. An additional grading at the western portion of the proposed residence will result in the removal of 55 yards. Total re=grading & backfilling will require the stockpiling of competent native soils of apx. 75 yards. I r r a Oa O O, <� O rn mtn M f •� ro i omi is L� N N N cl • Tn x z kP 10 0 I r 1 226 '� I � I0 o 7 n I� rn CL G O R O % I a � O Z m Fr 1. - 2.26 r 7 ID i i •i i C3 -� o a i I M 0 D PROPERTY DESCRIPTION: a S nFi :Z, —9, .-t- L. 220 . C 1 ' Contour Irte-va; t c �-eet `� rc-4 r 'G3zx �' / LEGEND: GRADING -PLAN scale: 1" -10' - 0" Found Reba- V,; :r• Cap (Group Fc,u^I n Set Reba- h•1:~ L.. Cap No.856E ���� I.�GU ? �,�• . g M. 'fo'il�l• . 2 a 17405 mow. ) CG ZAC26 MAY, 12�aiCC*t2S')=2� l�.e C7 oiv�u.� 12/23/ i I a .. �12oP�� �2�rzi�2.54,"l5� • �fZO�°�D, Milt -I. �L�2'jj2.8�� �� olgj�>✓D t�l?• Ca 2 2 3 • "1 � � To• 22°1.'1� � LOT 3 CITY OF EDMOODS SHOPT PLAT N0. S-091. k§ RECORDED UNDER RECORDING NO 93-03310033. RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH/-COUNTY. WASHINGTON Containing 20,042 SQ Ft. - 0.46 Acres ELEVATIONS: REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS 114TUN• BENCH MARK USED BEING THE INVERT OF THE SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE AS SHOWN HEREON ELEVATION - 209 52 F ET 236 Za0 i h� 2 lr� n CONTINENTAL ENG , CO . PREPARED FOR 7/W CC�i fG4n/ 10007 GREENWOOD AVE. N. EVERGREEN HOMES INC. •� 4 1.556 � . P.O. BOX 033725 JOB NO- SEATTLE WA. 98133 a OWN. BY k . c . o . DATE 2-19-96 96007 h [2061 783-7177. R P Lg # �I CHKO. BY SCALE F W H SHEET 1 10 1 OF 1 0 tbS