The URL can be used to link to this page

17003 72ND PL W (2).PDFlill iiiiiiii 5712 17003 72ND PL W - CITY OF EDMONDS w�- '�, PERVIT zO� ► CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION `� _ / s• �z eeuaTBZR - 11 OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS JOB ADDRESS ! -7 003 7Z M SUITFJAPT PG ``� • - �' 7.1,v.�tJ y L AL E 1 TION 'H CK SU901VISION NO. LIP NO. W MAO'.LINU ADDRRiE:S CITY ZIP TELEPHONENUMBER PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP, TE9CP RW Apitrowd Pw Rpuhad D Q r •('. nTj �-r�„, u �L ^ Jh7 E%ISTINO 'p REQUIRED OSEOOI.CAATION__ gt,�UN PMmK Rp'E 0 �'„'C I NAME vROPOSED _L1� " Inswilon Rpuired X ''^k 546—elk Rpuirs0 •. =n 44Q NEMA/R7KS H ITS w ADDRESS 111 G. 1 )p m -M t CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER Y rl^Ni✓rwe,,ca1�� 4--�r•�•„�•� -- Y�I • NAME U 6viuc F�,Wc LrvoIZJ F./(�%"�_�1 I�LJ•2� �(,' I 1 �a ENOMEERW'J MEMO DATED R Eyy 9Y u: ADDRESS •— Pam. SOX t'I gO - 'Y % MET" E Bl <1 O • . j! .DING �JyPLY 57ZE NO. OF FIXTURES �! i CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER o U M L) L0 7.-,- 0 ZZZ 7,5-17?25- — 315 RE, STATE LICENSE Y'JMBEq Lf�0% , Z. I �% SIGN AREA SRrA REVIEW: j,, ADO No: ' 0 Legal Description of Properly - include all easements LliA CF_S Gr?t'ST' ��aPDE.7A3. ALLDWED PROPOSED' COM It'E EfCEMPT , % /?� S SHOREUNEF y `w� ram: EXP ¢ y L,oT 3. E�.rtc3vOs I f 9f c�. ! lGfJ7uixJ A s .VARIANCE OR CU IN6. IEw' RY%t�' RE1 D 'E a i a u��ST 449 T / SETBkCY,S—FEET HEIGHT tot COVERAGE p ? - - FRONT (E� SIDE O REAR Tax Account Parcel No-'75/17_" _C70 RE MARKS .A Sl - ' J �h. NEW RESIOENi1AL ❑ Yyl Y� P,.UMBING -Q.1J • -'� ODIALTER ❑ ❑ f ,� COMMERCIAL M_CHANICAL ❑ REPAIR 1-1APT.APT. BLDG. ❑ ' •:'`� ,[ i. ; GRACING FEVCE ❑ ❑ - ❑ CHECK BV TYPE OF COr.9TRUCTION� CODE`. HEIGHT �C i DEMOUSH CYOS. L_x_F'1) ,�• i4 l`. �—_f _ .- . GARAGE? SWIM ❑ REMODEL GARAGE ❑ PDX: SPECIALINSPECTOq AREA REQUIRED ^ -..'iC . OCCUPANCY.` — OCCUPANT j 3 ❑ WOOD STOVE ❑ RETAiNiNC WALV INSERT ❑ RENEWAL - YES ROCKEW , L"HKS PROGRESS n YPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR A.C'iVITY) EXPLAIN-. I.dSPECTIONS.;PER U9C•3Q5 •�j/�•�.r� 1.-.; NUM'_Eq OF STORIES NUMBER OF - •-• ,y} /;E �(�/C�I• 'I//GrC/•/ �`i/y (/ c Z TNITS "I - UNITS - DESCRIBE WORK TO Br DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLANT .. - C �i�d S L /' INsfC�Dti/'�/>PIDlW�kf ht�,CJ ,FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED- ' 1 F R'ES/10Fyz VALUATION FEE 3c XrUGT ,6r lfYV • fiy PLAN CHECK FEE f� - :r u t' A'E K p3 /4 H� eulLrWo /! %z Plan Check NO, / MECHANICAL This Permit covers worn io be done on private property ONLY. GRAOINGrF1u Any construction on the public domain {curbs, sidewplks, driveways, marquees, etc.) �• will require separate permission. STATE SUR;HARGE {" tt Permit Applfcatbn:lBO Days � Permit Limit: I Year -Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE "Applicant. on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FSE Y♦J Wsuccessors in interest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City c! Edmonds, Washington, Its officials, — !.! _ . r a employees, and aqents from any and all claims for damages of ,"',•'3 = whatever nature, Grising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance k of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT ��•�� v :.J,'�i' ii modif waive or reduce an y, y requirement of any city ordinance -- =t - ••,. -- z nor lirnit In any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE - i I hereby acknowledge :hat I have road this application; that the information given Is correct: and that 1 am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL », Ruthorized agent of the owner. i agree to comply with city and state laws reguletint con n; and In doing the work author!z. THIS PERMIT This epplicallon is net a permit until od thereby, no person III be om ' ed in violatior of the Labor AUTHORIZES ONLY THE signed by 111O BUlldin� Official or hWhw - Code of the State of W sningtoh a g to WOrknlen'g Ccmponsa• WORK NOTED Deputy' and fees ere paid, and rDCelpt Is Hart Insurance. SK;nAt I aER O L NTI INSPEcnon OEPA;ITMENT acknowledged In space provided. F DATE SIC' D CITY OF I OFF CIAL's S"INATURE !E : fZr91 _ ♦` C ,+ EDMONDS U' , ATTENTION cap t �oR N.EASWZ%!:�" IT IS UNLAWFUL TO U'oc OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE A FINAL INS^=CTION INSPECTION 71-3202 g,1 UNTIL HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL — Fite YELLOW — Icgpeetor A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC Cie PTER ?. 1, PINK —Owner GC'A.— Assess 2 R•-`�-sr - , .., a .a_w... r .fir _�.. I � r ` ✓V r b ��r N. • ; h .I ."f.11y�t}Llt A..t.ill �.... - ;t •,. ,'. k}i +;', Ct ;.6 -,� a ;' F_. : ; .... li']'• ..- ..("+� ✓.IJ ^ t+_ i • 1 •`� f`. r.'•S 3 ` t•N�LL`�,y,rrt JL. •fy� ' � 1 CND 1�\\ ,\ ... •A: � tit 1( V `t_ �/� � �,;� 1 ...,, . ' " I � i S e � ,_ . , lt,z.,., .. < ila}-�•.�i. t � H-�,:ir�•, , ei.. i r c .. l .. '•_ ' _ • �' `_ � �_ �' i T 1 �` \ :rR,-l>�# 1"` ".T.a �'r` A`}GW .�`Ff-`E..t'Z k' -INSPECTOR AlaSETBACKS..,, FOUNDATION: r '.• ,+s Footing ................ 0 ,VVafo:.............. °f \:r R1eNPorch;:..,�. 1C'i�`��c�\. t p1 ji41 E 'G�j4: L Rfe�talning Wal!. . — 1 t '� PI,VAIBlNu'Y r,• , _ - •� "^,'^•C � r��y. f •'�. �•� �f �� 'n r \.... °' UlidelgroUnd _ .: �-�'-"-�—t.-�� r j— "' " .l 4;1` ,ar1^'+i' .......... .. �F• r��` '-�`•�:' Vie: --Rough-in , � vz .,\� t.�:S: rj�• y:t�i?"SL� 'ta:�14� STRM 7. R G,^s Test. Gas Piping ............. a axw Cc - Fq iPment .. , ......... • al U FIZA ... �7•w ° rrlT INSULA410N. • SHEETROCK NAILING i' �t � �r;,.y: r • al .' a •. 1 F; `0i'1_Ac.SPEt:IAL INSPECTION a INALAPPRVAL _� L ..�•r b "' FOR OCCUPANCY .. i, ,. �..� •�fr n v. 4•y. 'f•i Nf b,. C '— �at�• 11 �, 1 �,, y� , .tJ. .C"� ��. I • 1 r t.47 i '( .t •�' 1. Y'''!` � r�i•�t Alta.' n,d•�V�s g��',,'��++'a C 1 1 q j'l �0 }JW Ali !L iiVEi , 5 � �fi' i I�F •;✓�f'4��;��'s� � � ,s S'� �,�,, fns� � r�li7"~:'�,'AvT'��Ssf t°0��, �'' Vie" b}. t I // t' '� _. i '"' t ';. �.. .. 1 �•, c ij� a D� Y'�-\i t 4 ' z• �� ` _ �� C � `'•,.s.. ':Y1 ii'` r`'i'�^" fvhr �� / .� '. �4q_ y., .:; •'t_,.�. ' Ny +t Z, ._ r. - ° �- ...,T ,.. ..:�b�'�4y.- d....+i • 5.�:�i f... rlk�.l:_»S _.l:: t...3..._�'-,....`.c._.t�+na fc�, �� t i„ t er p ; i" T �'h�I T•�7' � r'` a .+r. � ,�s�. � `.,.yc ,: � '�"'• f o -} s e;, + 4� rA»--r ':` f ��t t �j�(,z. �� - +.�:z � , k fi� -;• x; +:� .. v- it' •; t/ •fin j -�• z,. � � I' c `. 1i # rtt �''� �t •F' n`>y + 2 t y. �� y�� wwrr1 yx�U .C� w� � .•�•� . � �+t`•� �I j_ �' ,'�. •fit ��. J.�: i. �.� \r. .f,\ .l / `.` r r, • .�,'/.l+�✓) � Y S�Mif�• - is _ r1 � .... - � +• 1�,�''• '. �,`• - .�• .. � � `. c ar 368 Age i ly Aa7 s 370 FU4. 'coo aaiAL 3 88 AV. kicx of • � �/ / � Lnc..oTir�� .aS, .411r3 E4n7ot/AS YiEZ/y .diK i - "!'x ',:F. >;• _ tom$' 1 •`,� :`!tilt i-w. .7 '94i, 71 p�. 4 . � Y 7 x I / ..-a.r +� s_ .?:ry! �f.+ •h{' ' «'� �tiA'3,. �,,,... r, .o ?.`c,•,L„ 7 .c5 ;t'+�' +. L " � s�3i'�-'y�` j`•r. + •yc� t-"'�'"�'".x _ . t-V. .t.(r'_�� X` •�;...#.� t+.„ti,�,��'y,iQ'Ft 3fk 3t �.� �� k. �- 7. � r_1". >y = a yy. �jd�h +�. r�*•s.. -.`�. t � r . i C',. �y r ;'`•r r• - ��. `> 5; c ew '` �- � c Jt - r {?P ,��' •,,,f . "'- a ,,rt 'b r � t�- �t''g�♦�i �* ' rx'^i ....�.,r•,,,,,s �1 �. M Flp �� t k(.,t ..C'�' .: 0 ,ti =� k_ . '. fy ;`1�3` ,.�.. - � +f . t:(t ."!',`4x ( o1,:i. t • � t� t § � ; r : i; '.-q' t T}, r �` � t _ `e ��• 2' - F �? "-t9(�� e ,i; e � t =^ 1 � - t �`.ti � Cy f �- f {� r �St¢}(�' 4,- �\�� o � � i � �•; i .k "+• "� .'t��a ,�. ' ,AUB 2`3 i991 ; Xt �DHTLt7�1 'Dole 41 , law, 1.101 IT A +f Or Ia 7 �; C c R h i�l- ° i ' 8 (n t pJul1 G 79 b1r Z� +65 ' • ; -54ln _ 8(-i5 + ;cr = INS) mA+ Mxwinal Atur.x:l: +t; �(,+-1_�,V -'t4 ,h,r L;t�r,'£;:,;� ;q� +. �%. r?:s; .� ai.- r. '!'a�.;�"r,*• .^3ss.• " .":`�'`' -�'` . 'Z"'�—.:" .. - � .._, r' <.. _ -a . �'�P ?. , r' h'�`��4 � --.i't•. vr, •-t.v: s. 'a."tw.+c�ki�}�.�,�1 _ .c' •/' t i A i Mr W.V ap-AXI)l I Mep 507OW C _LCr7 .0 e, 02 ri 1p; @ TELEPHONE 284 2410 � x NE • L H. T WEILKER & ASSOCIATES, 1XC. CONSULTING SOILS ENGINEERS 5645 - 42nd Avenue West: I Wall TO, P.O. Box 99086 r r. Seattle;Wa&hin8ton 98* , February 8, 1�99o. - Tri-Pac?fic Corp, P.O. F.ox 19415 `MAR Seattle, Washington r 98109 Pf.�!le,,C-OUNT:�t - - Attri. y Mark McDermott Re: Y Soils and Foundations f ' Proposed Residential Construction" ,- - Lot. ' 2, Eagle's 'Crest; Phase Dear Marks At your .request we have, investigated soil, and foundation condz tiors for proposed residential construction at• Lot s12,' Eas�li�'�srW Crest, in-Edmonds We, present herewith a.§um>uas� our findings,Conclusibns, and recommendations:', Site Descri tion The building site is a rec,anguiar,.area hav y ing a. wic'_ . of 27' ft, and a length of 74 ft, located' o:x72ic7.` Place W. iu, ,E8monds, Washington.' It occupies a northwdbt` 1"fae h,4 ing hillside. whose total to' ographid relief is''approxim!i ely 170.`` ft;. relief within the" actual building site is- 1 ti to 12; ft` The site is devo=d, of`structures or improvements,`and xs coieYeti' b=:, native vegetation. Soil nz4 exposures are of dense glacial till, with an overburden of fnrest duff and/or.loose-dumped fills. s Pro osed Residential Develo ment 't1e understand the site is`to be de7e of d-as a singe ami y residential structure withfa daylight bas,;ment set into the hillside. z� Soil conditions are known from published inforrt,ation, notes,�in� 'r our fills, and from an'examination of soil exposures'`in`the immediate area. The site is comprised cf extremely dense gla- cial till, beneath which is found a dense glaciofluvial sand. Groundwater is not anticipated to be a factor 3n the dey=eln=• meat. �s f >•i t ��. � 1'ri-Pacific Corp. �. -- - _.February °A COnclus:.Ons and Recommendations o thL -- On the basis ti s rP of our;''.` and a ro o ex�w►in:a,,-',:a of developmentiVwe idr:aw the follcwing principal conclusions: � • We 3• We believe the site to be � ' ra�t;air. so � a (table •one and.ti,at itv, givan attentio, to . the follo'ving Paragraphs. p:-cautions as outlinar? .in F 2• Excat.atit.ns for the structure v'ili encounter:-thef•QEnEA�; .• � AN glacial till which cc•vers ' the upland surf aces-,throu �:ZO this a-Aa. :yz anticipate that tt,e bearin ho,rizo+ encour.cered Y in the crater g n willbe be' Part of the and that it will besi'Le . `exposed:.,,�. withineasy rear., (bonstruction in those locations in which it i � not, actually--, Y t 3• Foundations in one the parent so'1 snit -.(if identified) may b.? loaded to P perly, ! r « 4000 s£.spread` ions t+hauld be at Ieast 1b1 inches %nri f 3Pread',goubda i 4. Excavation slopes in the glacial till formation m�+► � made -near -vertical to heights of 0 ft or more; howe��er'..uC.`' # care should be exercised.- the making of •F ineure sore that loosened or P.�uts?to�. our P tions of the formation i u or:;ex.trane ppzr deposits are riot a part face.- 3,. 5• Latera? earth for;;es against. retaynin "z� Est tion kka�Is g, wal�a •ox:;Lfc unda may pe.a cu�.ated on the basis of an imaginary flu* i1aving a deria.,ity of 30 level) cr.60 r r pcf (where the backiill is Pcf .fox steeply sloping backfil.i) M1 6. We anticipate that-tbe lateral -resistance daLion of the,fnun- elements will be f-urd in,base. ,friction; this,maypbe calculated on tha basis of a coefficient of friction of A 0 �+ (ultimate).6 =;`` .:•°"; . safety `actor of 7.5 when appraisin the stability of sed retairc.rgtwal],s1 inubotM; sliding.a.nd overturning. _ r h . 7• Set.'.ement of foundation elements , fir k1 t.. .,$ �vaa t7a will occur from com- pres "" I-IGw3 v loaded zones within the soil-, s+ and recompression of disturbed portions of -the bea.rinare,,. faces. Recompression g sun depend of c g nod bearing surfaces ,will of fines ra-to-which course, on the degree to ;. which.disturbar_ces'.takes place.. We anticipate that a careful effort in the r, a,J tion of bearing surfaces will limit one-half inch. settlement to l�ssPthan 8- Precautions .Any bearing surfaces prepared in fine graine son units :rust be protected from the effects of . ponded surface water or groundwater. In -the event of pro- C..1 V. r Tri-Pacific Cor gi !` ;z __1____ a ruar 8, 19•z0 longed precipitatiat tom-` xsc ox: he time of construction tay leoeauary to suspend operation3 or provide. protectio3tnmfor. =; exposed bearing surfaces. If the hearing surface should r � bec_.ne disturbed at any time it should be re replaced with compacted Irov and' . replaced granular fill before foundation. construction, - ` 9. All material from excavation. must be reacved from the site and disaosed of elsewhere. '? 41 siteQadumped or. the .el 'surplus material cannot be x= slope. Should a retaining wall be c�•s templated to hold fill on thp portion on- e steetion of the site should be contacted for guidance. ° we 70. Any sprinqs or obvious zones of i groundwater encour.�a� - tered during the excavation work should be provided with' a �.,.. lateral drain. Dlaced in a trench y' sibie into the we* ex�a•va;:ed a:% far as pos.- _ maximum practical depth •a When hwrarcedh has reached the with t P_ perfe___ a he end pluggeu or capped, is thrust `-` , and the annular space backfIlled wfth coarse wa3hed :sand Y' 1 i . Al? below.. grade spaces (inclading retaining walls) "? should ba protected with carefully designed and constructed ;a wrapped with filter cloth and placed inparbedaof, shed pea: foundation drains. These should be' of j gravel. 'A number of details are available to facilitate >� the drainage of the single -formed soldier pile foundation wall; these will be provided upon, _equest: N ]2. All surface drainage (roofs, patios, driveways aRci water from off -site upland sources) should be collected 'and. a7 disposed of to an 4pproved location• stances should surface water be led ir,tenfouadationder no cdrains, v dry we `] y wells, or infiltration trenches. Upon completion of construction all e � surfaces should be protected with a veetativ-e co earth a close-knit root system and a broad leaf, cover having We shall be pleased to assist in the continuing develo this property; P perty; we request that we be kept informed of prone •of scheduling in order that we may verify project he pre- 7 pared bearing surfaces, and assistintheereso.lutionuacy ooftunfote- seen difficulties. ,-4 �w o NE�,f Very truly yours,, a!yer 0 h =10 NEIL H. TWELKER .AND ASSOC., INC. �1 h, t r 9 Lq i• ��Fy�FCIS7E��\� S�ONAt,� H. TwelTcer; Pres. vY NHT:nt k. j� CITY OF EDMONDS 1 2 0. 5TH AVE N. • ED&A0ivDS. WA COMMUNITY SERVICES: 6 PubII« Works • Planning • Parks and Feerea'on ;EnVirmWing890.19Alt February Lif ' 26, 1991 ?``.+ Paul L. Pearson 9717 Juanita Drive :.E., #403 Kirkland, MA 98034 " ; RE: Permit Applicatio- for New Single Family Residence ; . Y. Yo!:� permit npol i cati on is due to expire on 7/31/91 < Ifiyou. ` do Pot.: iniend to follow-through with the project, there are plan checkfee the amount of $S60 due and payable immediately. If you are continuing with the ,project, there are total psrmit ,feetjef� r" $1,292.50 due and the permit must be picked up and fees paid expiration, date of 7/31/91. No extensions can be granted on this permit applicst3On; Other fees roust be paid and the permit issued with an irfspertien'SchedWled'Vthi�,.T_;; . ; 6 months, or ycu must pay the 01sn`chsck fee only', your'app r this projectT-cation' i� will be cancelled and you must resubmit fo, if„you,�nten.►� i to' do,it in the future. If you have any questions, you can call me at 771-3202. Thank you, Sharon Nolan �! Permit Coordinator • I 4: r. I' • lncorpora:cd August 1I, 1896- • ;,. Sister Cities International ' 1 Frakinan • s '� � ,.i �, /. k +. i _ . I r Japan ' _ `{"- �-,• ,.'. s .tif:a. �°>.r<.t?�.�'7[a�,:Qx:�, ryl r .C^ARw'=. i i TELEPHONE 2E4 2410 NEM H. TWELKER & ASSOCIATES,, f INC. BUILDING CONSULTING SAILS ENGINEERS 5645 - 42nd Avenue West ; . �• . mau To: P.O. Box 99096 Seattle, Weshingtou 98199 August,3� ` f rid ? •� - -. t+,` • .. - . John Thoreson :.{- I' r •: c/o Leghorn Enterprises, Inc. -• .. 3) P.O. Box 1188 .�-•' i Nukilteo, Washington. 98275 { Attn: Bob Leghorn =7V• %/Q �o _ Re: Residential Site Preparation Lot 3, Eagle's Crest II r� Dear Bob: During the past. week we have assisted in the site and foundation preparation for your current SFR construction'pra;ect at..'Lot''3 in Eagle's Crest 1I, Edmonds. Washington.. We.present herewith, a, report of our. ir:dings, conc.usions, and recommendati6ni3" `- Recent -Project Activitv Duringthe tion .or e _ goat., .ten _'days the : excava=;,. t asement was commenced, revealing- a Unit- Qf de' 6sd.'' :`", sand and gravel (Vashon'Advance outwash), Be caLse of .a inisun- darstanding regarding,the competence of -the unit, an.inadeertant overexcavation-was•-made throughout the building footprint;'how-i. , ever, this was immediately corrected by replacing with compacted fill fucing Material from on -site excavation). At this' writing the site is prepared at the project foundation grades, with free -draining granular materials exposed throughout. The west- erly cargin of the excavation conbists of a near -vertical cur 'ff with a maximum height of approximately 14' feet. Conclusions and Recommendations On the basis of our review of the project circumstances, we draw the following principal con- clusions: 1. Excellent support has been achieved ::or all proposed structural elements throgh the buildinc, area. I` i1) V rrtt John 1`horeson must 30, 1991 } I� li 2• Although the cut slope at -the excavated r west iurhilh) side of •the, area has. not shown any irdicatic�ns of failure, °s nevertheless canposed ` it of a soil with miniml..binder, and should be treated wish . - Some kind is recommendedreat care. A protective .work -of construction protect worYmeri� a of the 1a9 ' 'ih r the wall • Whir:. need rot be system ; its puroc,se . would be rein, a:,full ' shoring i n ty,,, ,, quantities of material which could break lcase�elysmall .' excavation face. A s stem of vertical timbers' securedob ' an anchorage at the top and bottom of the y Plywood cut ` sheathing, would suffice, along space available for this effort; If,ttie an wo>>ld be even bee1its, ecology block retention: system"'``:" Ecology block should he ` with a batter of 4 '. F or 5 to 1, and may Placed leaving or_1 y be stacked four high•,:. Y 4 feet of exposed excavation face: .. 3 we `• t -, • have not have the o tiara drawings for the opportunity to inspect the founda- tunity however, 1+ we take this d to point out that the st d54igned to resist lateral should be forces calculated wfoundation all of an equivalent fluid having a density_ the basis - '� o` 30 pcfo he steal be pleased to follow this project to the the substructure .'• completion o work, providing such addtional f. anise as you may request. advice o gui'd- Veru truly yours, oF w' ynn�r�F� NEIL A. " TWELKER. AND ASSOC:,.. INC., as � " `:. .. b Nei �.Wel er, Pres. NHT-.nt . - —jay _ .. , `��,t • e ' �� `��',N ,y� � �•'^'-v�-�-•y`,� " - � � - - l _ tit ..•T - .. •,•'.ytwM�e ; . t.,,�„ I `G .a}. �i.'•.i'z� � t:.. � U. �fd �f.6 � W�.. � l 1 •:L.-.:. ` � -.7.« v � .y 'k. SELEP_MNi NEIL H. TWEL:EfER & ASSOCIATES, INC.. 'ING SOI CONSUL�,. LS ENGINE S t 5645 - 42nd Av;nn. wea y' I _ �•` Moll ?'o: P.n. Box 99w #: 1 Suttk• Waihitgton 981199. October 8'� :i-991 01 John Thoreson c/o Leghorn Enterprises, Inc. ^')qL P.O. Box 918a#` Aiu3ci1t20, Washington 98275 Attu:: Dese� Aariotis�1I.GU!!6i'�FR'; Reg Foundation Preparation for S' FE f < Lot 3, .Ragle°s Crest 11 Coitatr.uction. Edmonds, washin gton �. I{ Dear Deane Duria�g the past 'month to have followed the I tt,n preparation aaid"construction $t P.ragreas of sfottnQa- 3 in Ragie'n Crez3t"XI, Edmonds Washington.cuW�epre��n��2eretwiLot a Eei?�t of our findings and conclusiongs. I Recent Project Activit,/ , as seer e n our tteriof Augustthe g30ng9of the iVtitial` a retain ing, 991)� wall , the g, at the nort heast side (die - _ was can wnh111D'.of the s truct:ed and allowed to cure. This' wall was then back fillet] with stockpiled material from e.e` origin"tril excbvatic (a clean,, slightly gravelly sand). `S e II o procedure Aeration was identical to that of the fir_ si ' film Pbtu da i9ns ' ire"them cast -for the intermediate strip footings and for the,.._ 's ' -.pper foundation tvali. The wall has sine I now in the curingeta e e been Completed and is g prior to backfill The foundations for the parking structure at the aotzthaa;gt sad �_f' Of the building site have been redesigned io ac' od } conditions ae ate site prepared. igte design, rlihich calls for. strip foot :. inge placed on-thorou%hly compacted soils at the top and bottom of thb slope, and grade boama traversing iateriala in the mid- the sec�i-compacted portion, has our approval. 1 to coa.:luOe that the steps which have been taken in the desigg and congtrui&• ion mare appropriate and that they' ht ce been car- ried .ocit ea orily. T 4V E Very truly yours, VEIL H. TWELKER & ASSOCIATES, INC. g G,r rMTEA 6 ` NHT:nt �'0?1� Ne ee, flzea. Y �nw FM Gene -al Contractors • " � 4 Residential • Commercial Reriiode! LE'214OG March 2, 1992��3-% ..2 City of Edmonds Building Department A• 253 5th Ave. N. .a.. > Edmonds, Wa. 98020 RE: =1S7RLr—TjCN PEFMT hoo. 91tZo23• FINAL Iiv,SPtE4:T� Cent rE! (iBl'1: � �/C)OCI�AlVC.Y G � �•>a - :}.- We are substantially complete with the above described project, but riot Yet called for fiml inspection. The Nners hays r lave that we allow them to move in their furniturh. We informed there that ' could do so, but that they should not ocxYypy anti1 final jnspection. We do not know if they intend tG occupy before.finm� nSpt�Ction. Car request for fin .i inspection ._. ion has been delayed until the provides same mis9ing design details on a inforrmt ion verysoon, the work will be guardrail. We expect this r F feted almost imnrediatel r' &Da--ic Pt- and We wi? i rust t!-�e final insaectian. Y �. '206) 745-3577 P.O. Box tief , MUKILTEG, WA 98275 SINCE 1975 4. r / h Generai Contractors Residential • Comme,val . Remodei LE-GH- 01.214OG AAr i 1 :28, i -- Ci ty of EdmondsBuilding tii'wwti �.,r. Department Ni" 250 5th Ave. N. EdXnds, Wa. %020 •'* x:CaZ MCN PEFdYZT NO. Ma23; FINAL ir+ cxu/00Ct1P4t Gant 1 amen : wa have Just reviewed the f canstruction Parking bridge at the above references' of the he guardrail around the Pro with the design nor the ►fie had nothing'to do;,`._;,_,r` , cons4rctction �' o;' this 9Usrdrail, and. tak® no re`-nsibi l itY for its design nor its .+k s}r Uctural a CiACjU3Cy Sincerel Bob l.ef7horn ' t L. (20C) 745-3577 I" ( P•C. Box 1188 • MUKILTE O, INA 98275 SINCE 1975 ^ w - � b[� � i � � 4 T �4f✓' }ems - I 1+.y �..I` . � r=. S 'rQ �i��.G:� Y Yak'-,�`K6iT�+t irYr`e+i ira�c�c'Si,�,�� gY,� •;`�'.��2tj. Yl , r�yy,e� f ��.{f-• E-r. . ... - - - +' , . .. r � r.. i i.i 1 4... lf'-.11 .N Ci,\•-k'.`,r t�r.� NEE H. �WELI$ER Q7G PtSs®CiYAT9.a7e INC. • •� yYyri•.',� CONSULTING SdIL9 ENGINEERS Atoll ro:Ro, son"M �t9titt. wPt::i�tOp 9ii� - I April 30, 1992 ' Leghda°t Et:t�rt�rie�® r.0e box 1180 Xu1Cilteo, 'W98hiington 98275 Attni nob Leghorn Roe Residential Construction at List 3i lagle's Crest II :t Edmonds, Waalni%ton Dear gobs An this date wo inspected vith Dean Dariotis.your recently, coin-: plated aiRaIG •family, residential structure at. Lot 9 of. me Crest Ii, in Sd>xds, Washington. Ruing the course of tihe.axaeii; nation, ve presented our canciuciane recard1ho the outcbns of ; the construction and than current Status of the work 'to Mr:= Dariotis7 we confirm this inforffiation hereVith. REakaz4ut Thho' houa-:wFtich vaa constructed inAhe suw*r-a2id. ill. of ?$'91, Vto founded -,n a formavion of deisvo sand. Because of the hillside location of' projectt the weetearly, foundation-.eian� ware c;onatruc*ad as .c_ .,ining •:alir�, and the e�sat®rlp'fourldQ$4ott N�� element® no tranaveiee strip footingae i,.%t parking etxt�cttsre. £fOUVA tilde, of the house has been -founded on the reta a n vre13s:.- -`' g 'a . the top o! the slope and tVo 'transverae'etrig foatisags,at..the bna®.- of the slops, .Vitt! a. rov or inclined faundAtian ties coAaecting , the westerly of the two strip sootings at the base of the -,slope -to the-. retaining veil st the 'top of the: elope. It is apparent that tZ,* inclined -tie@ were cast as grade beaze on the encompaeted fill which coveted the surface of.che slope at the time of construction. The fi:U has since coMpzesaed .slightly leaving gags beneatb' tho f Qrade beava. The Building Inppector for the city of'Edmoade'has Muoroted clarification of the function of the inclined grade boamiB I (Notice of Corrections Required, dated !larch 27, 1992). :®'d L406t3b8 ONI 'S3SINdb31N3 NNOHO3'1 / I 4� f, D. _14: I cp�,_ A 7'. ,71 R'-F -"1-77; , MFII_ i Ir VAI z-, az C W, psiasigY `e®uclu�los�$Qa$j�gtsixa�m�n�; sit®' draw the 're ,review I ay, 1. ;4 J4 �Y `her hQ486 C1� On -the sand farsiatior'i tin Wei 2- TA® "Xhlchap,-u -port tQ;" t a bagel,, ok-�t" thoeo CAOM I " ant* aL-6 t i6h ace belov finished qj4'4' 3- The inclined grade betxmia* bebeneath1C '. bearing element* for the support of -i�hst ztru,6t�uz,6�1 at moral fOUn;1*tfOn ties to connect the i�Ppir 'At�d - I ii4r:'t-6i varies footings-- 'These tie&; 'were or"iginal,11' Cj Y iO'tdkG 3dvantage or that featuiq , ds*: a : guppaft concrete VOIr - (thereby' making elivj�ed'� or"Y MW that UhO Conersts ham 'cured, -the Jnt4)LInO4 fieW.COquireli Zurther. support. Ejeom the underlyilig soil,. We,g 061 no:: *noon,, YlaOl addi'-iOnal fill In this area, - at least foe qtru'dtur'ail 1,, 1.n summaiY, ve believe tho foundation work fO:7 thli.'proj" , been Performed proparly'ane in accordance with ihe'qui I d4h,46 Te SUPPlied at the tine of construction, We shall b4 _ discust, our concluai.,nne at areater length vith r6ii or other Aiicar`- ooted 'pprtieo, at your convenience. Vary truly yours, NEIL H. TWELXER AND AOSOC., Nell H. Twelxer, Free., MAL! KHT nt I , :y.�•;: ..r f =•r 4:,;. `�� t r 3 "` `` Y`A _.rt _ 7-frcY'��s'�` L- ' { Y o � F 1 ' � R R Y• � � I. r R@$:CjWTtilt'c} - •' df?iik°iI &1 hi"v x ;. h • . _. iSDII I.. �3]SF>t78kA �,' ��BCT � � ,{ �� }�x; ` I ? 1f a City oglana�s ; 250 Rh Ave. N. F-ancads, Wi 98020 t M& Sir Wa ate as rmeipt ofyow t did A�sy.:ls; fl9�2 caacetair► the field usspeebota cfthe ,. �•� �� aboar, ttftmced projeM As I dimurAd busth you o n the per, *e ti&avalkiid lYE L� �2l a:;-T to GM RAffi3m-.wing we& It appe eted tu us that hem -,hi i kwx on it'si k aad craeked it. Sin� dame c.a by W= in tnetny aa�ess,of aidcvralks is ft &eve l ft coacrrte vt+ "s Rap><ue>�t Pe:hl�ps Yhsr r>a- m wdtarh east Wu r In any regard, we are wAt reVoasible fur this damge. We do rot ic�ad t� tepw t Dar. joO.Managa h �+ (206) 745-3577 — P.O. Box 11Be • W.UKILTEO, WA 98275 SINCE 1975 -7� TWO" VraM6rs Si �xntja %4 din c. tune --1 992 401 tterlie,'Buildifig'. ulspeabr-`- _.y mmmuty 'i -s adsiy-, ' 1' fFdiiinrids .250 Sth AVc. N. Wa. 98024.. ...... . 3t. . . . . . . . IM, TeNGMEZM'G FIT, LDlei SFF kMON 17 Dear fT 16 recmnw toycmz Wfi& ca to 0 6 6 whic aiie you Z-•1 lcllnlo, ure- nalize'the frkbeca�,-e vc 'fi&4zed, a6d that tlta;bjjj6s w "0 to c MIMMICQUOn W Addison, 71, U Uj W owher,`and'*e iideia .,te our position t6. YOU we!,V, Y* mm na reVowilib-fe'-for thj� V1, K- We hive em a copy of our ietter to Mi. Chnsman for yoturr records. Dmn Dafiofis-,- Project Manroa. encl. (206) 745-3577 P.O Box 1 M - MLIKILTEO, WA 98275 j , SINCE 1975 h1Att.ED7010t92� N 4 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDM04DS,WA9=20 •.(2001771-C220 FAX (208) 771.0221 rv> p COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT i dr Public Worke • Planning • Parka and Recreatlon • EnVinoerine @9p:19� July 10,1m ,BAN-151592 � t ,{� Mr. I. nernen t '� 17003 72tad Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 +,r RE: Replacement of Dsniaged Sidewa?k Curbing Adjacei<lt to 17003 72nd Dear Mr. Tboresen: s ` Dul,eng our final inspection of your new residence, we noted several sections of sidewalk x. vas damaged by your contractor. As'a matttr of and wrblrg, adjacent to your property, . standard procedure, we hsve the contractor replace any damzge he causes and will not sign ., off on the.perrnit until the corrections are made. We feel the centrac'or shavld I* held xceosin 'bte for replacing t1 use sections of tl^ ed curbing and sidewalk'as identified. our last teleahcue conversation, you staled theHomeowners Association :,,ac lat n3ng to 6 re air all +diunapd sidewalks and curbing in yotir development: Since the roa �' r, sidewalk are private and the association wants to get the repairs done; we will not hold y.,ur final any longer even though we feel the contractor should repair what he damagrisl:- All work on the sidewalks and curbing must meet City standards aid must be _ spelled 'to rf ensure compliance. If you have any questiars, p► 'nse call me at 771-MO. 4, Sincerely, ~Y Ad.5son L Chrisman IV ELgineeeing Inspecter ALC,/dm ; Wt)rd\Eng Floppy\"fhoresen Incorporated Aur;usl II. iS30 • ti Sister Cit;e., International — Hekinan, Japan ; �MSA lu i, 890' `9y ti• a< w • r CITY OF EDMONDA ♦• . CIVIC CENTER • EDMONDS, WA QS320 • (2031775.2U5 , r : l 4 q. • fi a �Yv Augu'at 21, 1992 J. Thoresen P:a. BOX iiuki i teo.,, WA 28775 R£: Permit•#910623 Single•Fataily Residence ' r $u ldiitg Division, recordstindicate that you have a buildint'`peri t r ° which .W 'a iiad•',without'final''ins, 9cti�ou. The initial Wift is val4d for cede year• from the `date of permit .issuarce. ' Section 305,of_ � the a988'editioi� of the YniforiI Building Code,.as adopted*tote:•City, s•�ates, "Xt shall b® the 'duty of the person doing the cork 'authorized ~• ,t.;" '' byYa permit -to notify the buylding.officiai that such work is ready for M inscuctinn." A firta? inspection is required in -order to close,your permit file with the -City. Spy �•-fir Please notify the building division within 10 days date of this letter to -schedule for the required final inspection. Please be aware .that occupying the structure tsithout a final inspection is a violation of Iecti6n 307 of the Unifom Building Code. Cortact the building division at 771-V0220 for your final inspection. "'thank you, Sharon F. Bolan. Permit Coordinator A incorporatt-d August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Jarat• 1• X H E N 0 R A K D U M DATE: AUVust 25, 1992 TO: Lyle Chrisman FROM: Sharon Nolan,' Permit Coordinator SUBJECT.!. LEGHORNITHORESEN PERMIT #910623 A letter was tent on 8/21 informing Mr. Thoresen that his permit tad'..,., kj expired without a final inspection. This prompted a call foonlegho,rn stating that they had received a final. I 40ormed.themothat,they-had.rs not received an Engineering final --which ffi'ea'nsthey. h 4.thaVt n' t z, o. -eceived a Building final! This issue hEs been dragging on since May. The,Building Department is; requesting a response from the Engineering Department within the* -nut 10 days showing resolution of outstanding requirements. If -the' Engineering Department has -;;t been able to gain compliance and issue a final by September 10, 1992, the Building Department, by direction of the Building Official, will close the file without a final. Lyle, please let -me know what's going on one way or the other.' OCCUPANCY APPROVAL FORM CRTE S EtvT : .,/�2 7/72. FROM: Permit Coordinator, Building Div:sion i TO: 'FIRE DEPARTMENT -.Gary McComas ENGINEERING DIVISION Lyle •Chrismar, x'' ( KANNING •DIVISION --Edward Somers S'j2,3x CT_. / 1 A) �-G- ADDRESS ,- 1 rr PFRMIT# ADB# NNER Please conduct a field inspection to•determine compliance with approved, plans. Final app,oval denotes there are no.objectiuns to -the granting.of occupancy fo- the building and that the performance bonds may'be'reieased. PASSED FIRST INSPECTION- CONDITIONS NOTED Z. FAILED INSRECTIGN OUTSTANDING REQUIREMENTS - RECALL FOR NSPEtTION ;. �pL ��' _SF��a� � s/,.: ,yam ;�r�•• z ,�.�;,,�-fir, ' '. .2... 1C'% G fi�`7n�f � - C.t" �i �j $ .%Li�,�=6� /n•d J�1'�"`+[�-'> ' ; i 3.F OCCUPANCY APPROVAL. DATE BY ,t-pb Ott RE -INSPECTED - APPROVED. DATE BY RE -INSPECTED. FAILED DATE BY RE -INSPECTED APPROVED DATE FEES RECEIPT# J t t�usrx,�a• OCCAPRVL TXTRECEP Au ust 15 1990 ;k P {. ..•r. _...._.�:`'1 (Li:S �hrrs.4tl.�_: dr. n.+u'it'. s�"5,>�.i:: *''� `."Sniu.'4 ` F�MrK.�^;: Y,y'a�:P';'7J,"' p'�; - I f y i •' _ •' _ ii.'�F:'t�Ye '�i".:3'�.t .•J'I � 2-2 J� u . /.� � � ; • -.� _ • OCCUPANCY"APPROVAL .FORM - .• • X ; � �,, ' DAH = SfNT. F a6m: Permit 'Coordinator, Building Division TO: FIRE DEPARTWENT ; Gary McComas ENGINEERING DIVISION Chrisman PLANNING•UIVISI0 - Edward Somers SUBJECT %' ADDRESS PERMIT#:-,L! d_ ' ��ADfs OWNERtiM. r, M 1i, a "4. :; J .Pleose conduct -a -.field inspection to determine comp.fiance41th'approved:. , .. plans'. Final :approval -denotes there are no objections to•thii granting of r ` occupancy-for•the building and that the performance bonds may ke-released PASSED FIRST INSPECTION CONDITIONS'NOTED .• 1. y•tt F ; r� k. .�• y{ \ ty,�k 4YR�' `per x FAILED INSPECTIUH Ot1TST{',NDING REQUIREP",EiiTS. = RECCAL,L' FOR<.INSPECTION, 1 S��oa-G .P t?l:✓ri...,/:GJC ax.� y//mac 34, OCCUPANCY APPROVAL. DATE BY . _ � -- 7e•��., r<a+l .,ram RE=INSPECTED APPROVED DATE, 'BY RE -INSPECTED. - _ FAA LED +i RE.'INSPECTED APPROVED ".'OCCAPRVL/TXTRECEP/August 15, 1990' DATE ��/Z�l�'L. BY• DATE. FEES RECEIPT# ;F^'" ' ar,�. �, �«r�t�• : � �� ay.� 'i'1�' :..x t`^nP,�i'�''�`!4�,+d��'`KtiX`Y"�:s�.,�"ic"1�1`�w��+ '� : .,"�..4 y '• � S d rra ,�` ;q' . f F !:, i:; r .a+ iy � x � t r IS ,e , « Y ! �',� �� &',� q '�'4'y '�r�t jv > � � � �1� � • • ..w. _'" � � i., �< 4�w �: � f c �' ■ ■ .� rr, .+y. F'r "Ct t � f �r � g �1 � h.; - �i+7 j>tf _ t !x tr�6 ; `�Iti�i '� ti.�� r�V�i* � �. tt e1 °w � ♦ . t 1 1 ��i Y^'F k � t . 1 . y r � . ' + •7"r [yW ytr y1" i' $ r ' r n,»: 4w < v� ✓ 8�e pic 6 1•!%r"IfJ-4 P+ A a vv, ;aw't. �v, 4 -�sty, 1 ai,: 1 .. v i` A �,M1 r v 1 _R•� /� � s � t „^4 f¢- � ,N .5a•' '' °rr, 4�. rA. � �,n . �i�Z. 3"�.g1 'iF �� t{, 4 ml #,r yt �w �� +"ww�. � r ¢�#�,d•• yyy��j.��a A � Ds"+"-� �'. (yt�<' � � �q� �� 1�' 1t ��;. � � x -'f , t �i rc� 5 j p� d ., � ,. �+�5'"EY"rt FE i'" r' ix - µi•({' is �5ir' i `v"� ''+Y� i1 d� C 1� � �n�f?R �.iri.'� !r � r S � � . �'}e�d#�F} d - . "r„ •F r��t ��.a.. �w�r � �I�t; f t �� dry �' "• � rs � j a wry uy ! y : i ' � $.� � V �'' �� r ¢ �i'14�" • I ", e OPP ♦ � � w J 1 r, �, ''. k > , r'- S �i M+ ♦. y 'rr' Y i rx YX _Yy ,°! 3. W' • �'ru 4 + '� , ,3r' 1 f { 1 ^" i- s ! 'fit• ., xs. �x�A .b� d Y a_ f+-!. 'a '! �a"s, `�e,� F,,yj�..4'' ;q�'+'7'r .yr �' iV *�%' .z '>Y eiF. S� «g$ '4'ar' ra1�St rle p..F .�., ;t�� H,�- p.,.a'^�,�., ..-••.-'s y u i '"-•�4' j.rr,.+. d ,¢ �.tv!.t.t. S:tif.,ma riiw.�.0 ff',.i:.y".a..iii'� �.t��,��r�tryry�l"tt ¢[(�?#-. !;�{(y•y��y•��w{ a tis apM tJ IL �Go+...aM R ' ..y ;ads {�,". t <.., �^ w ,r ''i�» ` '.1 "i• ` ' 3'' 4 1� p w a2' . ✓„� )!S f�'n ryv t•ri 'Y^+ a *il } Prx`f i -,, r: �� "w ♦ a tip'. ✓1f tx yr VA4 i'GV '!a, }$� e"'rr+`75 /ro ltlt,wrr4 f '"7i! ; 7s�► ., ° y, 1 IVA ILI 'ff 'ti,;+.t ��. .S. �a... 1 .f a%b �w.� '� q!.� �fp Cr wy r;� ♦ �t_ ).{i�'e .. wt�y+";'�`.�- ii 4 .7 ^ �. '. � Y 1 , '� � ,�;,� i y 1t ,ti � ��i . 4+� i �•k`v. {{w � s!1 + d" . � �:4 ,�� ' � i S ,r " i1'i � r t• • � � � �, TRr '� � . `"ho�� u' a � A . a � �-a � .x++ t1 r pat, 1: M � F � � � : Y i ♦ .: •, � y. "� �, yi _ - E 1 � r +.r y �"'yy t� f Y � 4� � � � 4° n � h i � n ; �' '+�'� � � ` � r M ' v .; ,.•a song'" a a: "k' Ty�j y ;;� a 'f6l � �}� . h': x � �*" ,,J ° j +.'7 � e K f RF i, i `f �„ 1• S % tw !, "* �ti� ��. 4 r w Yo � �.�W �'vr� _ , `� R+`4 �ar '� +'? ��! ;: , �, : •i _ r; F k ° r# � f � �4°�f �,y�? � !r *; « �r � � i ` !" vt 1 � ,+ r ' ''�Fr�'"'i� 3.e �k- "%" 'ro k'�y �. �S j';yrL "k'�-�.a r�+��'\• K+aS^. d}. a n,'a,S,i; i . 1 1��. ',ri' R �7f � �' r, .4y'i °psi, �+, '� p ��':!�', ° • �" 4 , '$ � 1 } , a .F ~�•. k'St ',11 � � -. � .N �''. �' Y 'y"i� q� �j f��'a+lilh,> h+ r•'�'+Q�yk � °� A'��'\} � �� f }� * • t. 'r i`t}r.' !�• 1 l,' ' SAw r. t I+r7, .r :�. • Ln r F w+ !'td F,? Rflk-" y y . i s } xWo. . xxa'y we '�Y �Ss r+• / � .. r Clary COPY January 30, 1980 Whiteley Jacobsen and Associates 2118 Third Avenue Seattle,'Washington 98121 Attention: Mr. Robert McClendon W% $ 'T' - R-L,-� ConvorseWard Dcyis Dixon Geotechnical Consultants Subject: GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATION Edmonds View Property, Phase I Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: 80-5251-02 This report presents the results of our subsurface investigation con- ducted at the Edmonds View Property, a planned residential development. lThe site is located near 172nd Street and Meadowdale Beach Road in Edmonds, Washington. The site encompasses approximately 12.5 acres. It is our understanding that project plans are to subdivide the property into residential lots, and construct roadways and associated utilities. Present plans call for the site to be developed in two phases. Phase I would consist of development of the southern approximate 5 acres and Phase II the northern 7.5 acres. At the present time, preliminary lay- outs for both Phase I and II areas have been provided. This layout dated January 25, 1981 consists of 12 building areas in the Phase 1 area and 16 building areas in the Phase II area. In general, the building areas are clustered on the higher elevations. It is understood that the remainder of the area will be left in a natural state. Access into the Phase I area is presently planned via 172nd Street, while the access to the Phase II area would be via Meadowdale Beach Road. Converse Ward Davis Dixon. Inc. 300 Elliott Avenue West Suite 150 Seattle. Washington 981 tc Telephr-" 206 235-5200 It is our understanding that the proposed structures will be wood -frame and be both one and two stories in height. In general, the foundations reportedly will consist of poles based in drilled holes on the downhill side and some conventional wall footings for the uphill areas. The purpose of this study was to obtain subsurface information and develop geotechnical design and construction recommendations. The scope of services for this investigation was outlined in our letter of confir- mation dated January 20, 1981. Verbal authorization was given by Mr. Robert McClendon on January 13, 1981. The primary effort during this investigation has been directed toward the Phase I area; however, a limited overview of the entire development has been completed. Our scope of services in the Phase I area consisted`&& the following: 1. excavation of approximately 18 hand -excavated test pits, 2. continuous logging of subsurface conditions, 3. obtaining. samples of representative soils encountered in the test pits, 4. visual classification of the soils encountered, 5. engineering evaluation of field exploration results, 6. preparation of a geotechnical report. A preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the site has been completed by our firm. The results of this evaluation were summarized in a letter report dated December 29, 1980. For completeness, this report includes j the basic information and findings developed in this previous report. a Site Conditions The Phase I area is irregular in plan, approximately 700 feet in width in an east -west direction and approximately 700 to 900 feet in a north - south direction. The property is characterized by moderate to moderate- ly steep slopes. The steeper slopes are approximately 2H:1V (horizontal to vertical). The maximum amount of relief.across the site is approxi- mately 180 feet. A maximum elevation of 380 feet occurs in the southern portion of the Phase I area and the minimum elevation of approximately 200 feet occurs in the extreme northwest corner of the Phase II area. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -3- With the exception of an old logging road near the central portion of l the site, there are no roads into the site. The higher portions of the site are covered by a moderately thick growth of second -growth evergreen trees while the lower portions of the site are dominated by deciduous trees and low brush. Geologv The subject area is located on an upland surface in the Puget Lowland. The Puget Lowland was invaded by continental glaciers during at least four separate periods during the Pleistocene Epoch. During these glacial and accompanying non -glacial periods, a thick sequence of soils was deposited. It is estimated that these sQ;fh reach thicknesses on the order of a thousand feet. The present surface characteristics and near -surface soils are the re- sult of the last period of continental glaciation which occurred between 15,000 and 13,500 years ago. It is assumed that these sediments are underlain by older glacially -related soils. Field Exploration The subsurface conditions in the area of proposed development in the Phase I area were explored by means of excavating 18 test pits on Janu- ary 16 and 18, 1981. The test pits were excavated by hand, as the moderately dense growth of trees and irregular terrain prohibited the use of power -operated equipment. The depth of the test pits ranged in depth from a few feet to 6.5 feet. The locations of the test pits were concentrated in the building and roadway areas at approximate locations shown on Drawing 1. The test pits were excavated by a engineering geo- logist from our office who maintained a continuous log of the subsurface conditions encountered. Representative bag samples were secured for visual examination and classification. Summary field logs are presented at the end of this report. All soils have been classified according to the Unified Soil Classification System. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. Subsurface Conditions The near -surface soils which underlie the site were deposited during the last period of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation. These soils (from oldest to youngest) are referred to as the Whidbey Formation, the Esperance Sand, and the Vashon Drift. The Vashon Drift is composed of three separate un-its: advance stratified drift, glacial till, and recessional stratified drift. It appears that the only drift unit present at the site is .the glacial till. Glacial till consists of a homogeneous mixture of silt, sand and gravel and was deposited direct- ly beneath the glacial ice. The subsurface conditions encountered at the te_slk pit locations consist of a thin dark brown organic layer of forest duff which ranges up to a few inches in thickness. This surface layer is underlain by a layer of silty sand or sand which represents either a residual soil layer and/or l slopewash. This layer ranges in thickness between approximately one to four feet and ranges between loose to medium dense. Underlying these soils is either a medium to very dense silty sand or medium dense to dense sand. The denser silty sand unit represents glacial till and, based on our explorations, is restricted to the upper elevations of the site. The glacial till forms a thin cap over the underlying sand and is estimated to be on the order of ten feet in thickness. The underlying sand represents the Esperance Sand unit. The sand unit generally under- lies the steeper sloping portions of the site. The sand is underlain by the oldest unit, the Whidbey Formation, which is exposed in the lower slopes, along the extreme north property line of the Phase I area below approximate elevation 280 feet. The Whidbey For- mation consists of silt and clay with some interbeds of fine sand. With the exception of the, near -surface soils, all of the soils which underlie the site have been overconsolidated by glacial ice. Weathering of the near -surface soils has resulted in loosening of these soils. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. The soils encountered in the test pits ranged from slightly moist to dry and no aroundwater was encountered. The static aroundwater table at the site is anticipated to be in older granular soils which underlie the Whidbey Formation. However, there is a perched groundwater table which exists within the Esperance Sand. Because of the clean nature of the { sand, surface water infiltrates rapidly, percolating downward to the i boundary -of the Whidbey Formation. The Whidbey Fo,rmatirn is sufficient- ly fined -grained so as to greatly reduce the downward percolation of the ` water. The result is a general downslope movement of the water above the sand -clay contact. Springs or areas of seepage generally occur where this contact intersects a slope. The approximate locations of the geologic boundaries are shown on Drawing 1. No areas of instability were noted during our investigations of the i. site. On the steeper slopes there was evidence of a general down - slope creep of the near -surface soils as evidenced by the bowing of tree trunks. Creep of these looser surface soils is a nomal occurrence on steeper slopes. DI SCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS 1 specifically i The following conclusions and recommendations apply sp y to the Phase I area. Somewhat different subsurface conditions are anticipated Iin the Phase II area and should be examined in detail. IOn the basis of the information obtained during this investigation and our preliminary geotechnical evaluation, it is our opinion that the proposed development is feasible from a geotechA cal standpoint. The steepness of some of the terrain will restrict development without 1 extensive grading. { The major portion of the proposed structures will be founded on sloping around and excavations into the hillside are anticipated. Footings and lower floor slabs should be supported on competent, unei sturbed rioder- ately dense to dense native soils where exposed in the excavations. In areas where the lower floor will be above the existing ground surface, i Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. it will be necessary to install footings well below the ground surface on a relatively steep slope. A pole -type footing would be suitable at these locations. At locations where the ground is not steeply sloping, it should be possible to place compacted structural fill which would be suitable for support of spread footings and.slabs-on-grade. - Our following recommendations are general. We have reviewed the planned lower floor elevations for the proposed structures relative to the existing ground surface as shown on the topographic drawing. In our opinion, our recommentions are adequately complete to cover foundation design and construction of the proposed structures; however, if design changes are made such as changing structure locations or floor eleva- tions, it would be prudent to review our recor'ndations and their ap- plications. For each structure, it will be necessary to determine the required exca- vation and filling, and the foundation system. ( Site Preparation �T All areas within the limits of excavations or where fill is to be placed should be stripped to remove vegetation and debris. The vegetation and debris should be removed from the site or placed in non -building areas. No material should be placed on the hillside downslope from the proposed houses. It is important that the slopes not be disturbed by the con- struction. Surface water must be controlled so that it is not allowed to become channelized and spill down the slope. The preliminary plans indicate that the maximum depth of excavation will be approximately 17 feet. Based on our explorations, the soils in the excavations will generally be silty sands with some gravel. The upper two to four feet of soil is loose to medium dense and grades to dense to very dense below. We recommend that the contractor be made responsible for the stability of temporary excavations. He is continually at the site and can evaluate the stability of the soils as they are exposed. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Irc. -7- Structural fill to support floor slabs or footings should not be placed on the moderately to steeply sloping ground. Fills may be constructed on flatter slopes provided the areas to receive the fill area benched to provide a level surface to support the fill. A bench should be at least six feet wide and the difference in elevation between adjacent benchs should be two feet or less. All structural fill should be placed in layers approximately eight inches in thickness, conditioned to a mois ture content suitable for compaction, and compacted to at least 95 i percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as determined by the ASTM D1557 compaction test. Fill slopes should be inclined at 2.5H:1V i (horizontal to vertical) or less. Soil for structural fill should be free from Qh�anic matter and debris and should have a granular texture free from clay lumps. There are r on -site soils that are suitable and we recommend that soils containing a minimum of silt or clay be utilized as they will be easier to compact and less sensitive to moisture content. t Foundation Support The proposed structures may be supported on conventional shallow spread l footings or a combination of spread footings and pole -type foundations. We recommend that the foundation system be designed so that all hori- zontal forces, such as those due to earthquakes, are resisted by the shallow spread footing portion of the foundation system. Shallow footings founded on undisturbed medium dense to dense soils may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 3,000 psf (pounds per square foot). Suitable bearing soils were observed at shallow I depths across the site in our explorations, generally two to four feet below the existing ground surface. Wall footings should have a minimum width of 16 inches and individual column footings should be a minimum of 18 inches wide. All footings should be founded at least 18 inches below } the lowest adjacent grade. I Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. 20 Our recommended criteria for footings founded in areas of sloping ground are that the outside edge of the footing on the downhill side should be at least eight feet back from the face of the slope measured in a hori- zontal direction. Footings founded on structural fill may be designed for an allowable net bearing pressure of 2,000 psf. Minimum size and depth of embedment are 1 the same as recommended above. The outside edge of the footings founded J on fill should be at least five feet back from the face of the fill measured in a horizontal direction. Pole -type footings may be utilized on sloping ground where it is not feasible to construct shallow footings. A pol12*footing would be con- structed by Ari l l i ng a hole with a power auger, inserting the pole and then backfilling the annulus area. We recommend the annulus area be backfilled with low -shrink Portland cement concrete. Our recommended minimum depth of pole embedment below the ground surface is six feet. The base of the poles should have a minimum diameter of eight inches. Our recommended allowable bearing capacity for a pole embedded six feet is 18,000 psf. For a pole embedded eight feet, the allowable bearing I capacity may be increased to 24,000 psf. The effective area of the foundation is equal to that of the base of the pole. The effective area of the foundation could be increased to the area at the bottom of the hole if a concrete footing was poured in the bottom of the hole to sup- port the pole. Such a concrete footing should be at least 12 inches thick. 1 The foundation systems for the proposed structures will generally con- sist of a combination of shallow footings and pole -type footings. We recommend that the horizontal loads be resisted by the shallow footings. However, if pole -type footings are required to resist horizontal loads, it may be necessary to deepen the footings to greater than the minimum six-foot embedment depth. The following formula may be used to deter- mine embedment depth to resist horizontal loads: Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. r -9- 1 - 1 d=2 1+fl + .A i where A = S.34P 1b1 P = applied horizontal force in pounds Sl = allowable lateral soil hearing pressure hl = diameter of"pole ih = distance in feet from around surface to point of application of P d = depth of embedment of pole in feet A value of 300 pounds per square foot may be used for the allowable lateral soil bearing pressure (-Sl). The diameter of the pole (bl) may be increased to the effective diameter of the hole provided the annulus is backfilled with low -shrink concrete. Shallow footings can resist horizontal forces through the horizontal passive pressure of backfill adjacent to the footing and by friction across the base of the foundation. Horizontal passive pressure may be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight (triangular distribution) of 250 pcf (pounds per cubic foot). This assumes the backfill is drained and compacted to at least 95 percent of the ASTM D1557 maximum dry density. Resistance to sliding may be calculated using a base friction factor of 0.45. The above values do not include a safety factor. A minimum safety factor of 1.5 should be used to design for resistance to sliding and overturning. Basement Walls i All subsurface walls should be backfilled with a free -draining granular soil and foundation subdrains installed behind the walls to minimize the potential for hydrostatic pressure to develop. The walls must be sup- ported on e-ense undisturbed soil. i Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -10- The on -site sandy soils described as the Esperance Sand unit would gen- erally be suitable for backfill. behind walls. The silty.glacial till soil s present in the southern portions of the site should not be used for backfill behind walls. JBackfill behind walls should be placed in layers not exceeding eight inches loose thickness and compacted with relatively light vibratory equipment to at least 90 percent of its maximum ASMT D1557 dry density. 1 An 18-inch thick layer of impermeable soil should be placed on the 1 ground surface and compacted to prevent surface water from seeping down- ward into the granular backfill. The ground surface should be sloped to drain away from the wall. Four -inch diameter perforated footing drains must be placed behind base- ment walls. The invert of footing drains should be at least 12 inches below finished interior floor grades and sloped to drain at a qrade of 1 at least 0.5 percent. Convenient cleanouts should also be provided. All -perforated footing drains should be protected by a filter of drain- age sand and gravel. There should be at least four inches of this mate- rial below the drains, six inches along the sides, and 12 inches above the drains. In addition, the filter material should extend upward, adjacent to the wall so that it is a minimum of 12 inches thick measured perpendicular to the wall. Our recommended gradation for filter mate- rial is: U.S. Standard Percent Passing, Sieve Size by Dry Weight 1 1/2 inch 100 3/4 inch 70 - 90 No. 4 30 - 60 No. 8 20 - 50 No. 30 8 - 30 No. 51 3 - 12 No. 200 0 - 1.5 1 Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -11- f We recommend that subsurface or retaining walls up to approximately 12 I feet high be designed for horizontal pressures equivalent to that of a fluid weighing 40 pcf (triangular distribution). i Surface 'dater The exterior around surface should be sloped to drain away from the building and surface should either be paved or covered with at least 18 inches of imperviouls soil to inhibit surface water from infiltrating i into the subdrains. ` It is our understanding that it is desirable to dispose of roof drainage J in dry wells. We anticipate that this schemeM11 work satisfactorily based on certain reouirements. These requirements are as follows: 1) the dry wells be located in the Esperance Sand unit, 2) the wells should not be located on the very steep slopes, and 3) they should not be located in the proximity of the basement wall perforated drains. The use of dry wells will be somewhat restricted in the Phase II area, these ( are anticipated to generally be those areas underlain by the Whidbey ! Formation. We understand that the storm drain system, relative to the roadways, will be designed to f1w into a retention system. We recommend that the retention system have a controlled orifice and be tight lined away from the slopes. Summary This report has been prepared to aid in the evaluation and development of this site for its intended use. The discussion of site development is conceptual in nature and must be refined to take into account final roadway grades, slope locations, and construction sequencing. It is recommended that we continue our involvement with the design engineers to assure that final site development plans and specifications are con- sistent with the findings of our investigation. Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. -12- We recommend that site preparation, foundation excavations, fill place- ment and drainage installations be observed by personnel qualified by training and experience to see that the work is performed in accordance with these recommendations, the plans and specifications, and good engi- neering practice. The findings and conclusions of this report were prepared in accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and prac- tice. We make no other warranty, either express or implied. Please do not hesitate to call us if there are any questions regarding the conclu- sions and recommendations contained herein. Respectfully submitted, CONVERSE WARD DAVIS DIXON, INC. l William S. Bliton' Senior Geologist Jack M. Hogan Senior Engineer I Converse Ward Davis Dixon, Inc. SUMMARY LOGS OF TEST PITS Test Pit 1 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SANG, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-1.5' SM/SP RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, with orange oxidized layers, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organ- ics, few roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 1.5'-1.9' SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble to 6" diameter; dry, very de,se. --------------------------------------.------=---------------- - - - - -- i Test Pit 2 1 0.0'-0.1' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, t numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. { 0.1'-2.5' SM/SP RESIDUAL TILL SOIL/SLOPEWASH, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, with orange oxidized layers, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobbles, trace I organics, few roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.5'-2.7' SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with jsome coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble; dry, very dense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 3 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, i numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2-1.2' SM/SP SLOPE WASH, SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium, with some J coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics,some roots; slightly moist, loose to ,medium dense. 1.2'-3.5' SP SAND. brown to reddish brown, with mottled gray streaks, i. fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, little silt; slightly moist, medium dense to dense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Page 2 Test Pit 4 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.3'-3.2' SM/SP RESIDUAL TILL SOIL/SLOPE WASH, SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly j moist, loose to medium dense. 1 3.2'-3.6' . SM GLACIAL TILL (moderately weathered), SILTY SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobbles; dry, medium dense to dense. ------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 5 0.0'-0.1' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, fnumerous roots; slightly moist, loose. ` 0.1'-2.8' SP/SM . SLOPE WASH, SAND, brown, fine to m6lium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.8'-4.0' SP SAND, brown, fine to medium, with little coase sand and gravel, trace silt; dry, medium dense to dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 6 0.0'-0.1' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.1'-2.7' SP/SM SLOPE WASH, SAND, brown,.fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.7'-3.1' SP SAND, brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and 1 gravel, occasional cobble, trace silt; dry, medium dense to dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 7 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-3.4' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown, fine to medium, with some silt, little fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose. 3.4'-6.5' SP SAND, brown to gray -brown, fine, with little silt and medium to coarse sand, trace fine to medium gravel; slightly moist, medium dense to dense. Page 3 f Test Pit 8 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to'medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-2.5' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse l gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 2.5'-4.0' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional -cobble slightly moist, medium dense to dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 9 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.3'-4.5' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics;.slightly moist, loose to medium dense. (Includes zone of moderately cemented sand at 1.5'-2.5', possible Till layer.) 4.5'-5.0' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; f slightly moist, medium dense to dense. --------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 10 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, ( numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 1 0.3'-4.2' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 4.2'-5.1' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; ` slightly moist, medium dense to dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- • Page 4 Test Pit 11 0.0'-0.1' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine. to medium gravel, organics, t numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.1'-3.0' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND,.SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.0'-4.0' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; -------------------------------------------------------------------- slightly moist, medium dense to dense. Test Pit 12 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand, fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.3'-3.3' SP/SM ' SLOPE WASH/WEATHERED SAND, SAND, reddish brown to brown, fine to medium, with some silt, coarse sand, and fine to coarse j gravel, some roots, trace organics; slightly moist, loose to ` medium dense. 3.3'-4.1' SP SAND, gray -brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand, and.fine to coarse gravel, trace silt, occasional cobble; -------------------------------------------------------------------- slightly moist, medium dense to dense. Test Pit 13 0.0'-0.1' -SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.1'-1.0' SM/ML SANDY SILT, light gray, very fine to fine, with trace medium ( to coarse sand and fine gravel, organics and roots; slightly l moist, soft. 1.0'-3.1' SP/SM RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SAND, brown, fine, with little medium to coarse sand, gravel, and silt, trace organics, some roots, occasional chunks of weathered hard till, slightly moist, medium dense. 3.1'-3.4' SP/SM GLACIAL TILL, SAND, gray -brown, fine, with some silt, little medium to coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel, occasional r cobble, slightly moist to dry, very dense. --------------------------------------------------------------------- 0 Page 5 I I Test Pit 14 0.0' -0.3' SM 0.3'-3.5' SM/Sp FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILTY SAND, brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand, and fine to medium gravel, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.5'-3.6' SM/SP - (As above, but harder, with chunks of till. Possibly top of till but not sure because could not dig further.) -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 15 0.0'-0.2' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. 0.2'-3.0' SM/SP SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SIL T� SAND, brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand, an4 fine to medium gravel, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3.0'-3.3' SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, occasional cobble; j dry, very dense. �I -------------------------------------------------------------------- Test Pit 16 l% 0.0'-0.3' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist,, loose. 0.3'-3.5' SP/SM SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SAND, brown, fine to medium, with little to some silt, little coarse sand, fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots, (with f chunks of hard till); slightly moist, loose to medium dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- !J Test Pit 17 ;t 0.0'-0.1' SM FOREST DUFF, SILTY SAND, dark brown, fine to medium, with little coarse sand and fine to medium gravel, organics, numerous roots; slightly moist, loose. O.1'-3.4' SM/SP SLOPE WASH/RESIDUAL TILL SOIL, SILTY SAND, gray-brov,n, fine to medium, with some coarse sand and fine to coarse gravel, occasional cobble, trace organics, some roots; slightly moist, loose to medium dense. 3_4' 3.5' -- SM----- (Harder, probably ------------------------------------ Test Pit 18 Doad rut SM GLACIAL TILL, SILTY SAND, arav-brown, fine to medium, with ` Surface Sample some coarse sand, and fine to coarse gravel; dry, very dense. -------------------------------------------------------------------- N J , Qvt . •� ,cif / // �: i L6re / ,\ r 1QW) �1 j7 ` \ \ / Glacial Till 1 GVT , GN -.r::r.ce Sand J 9 I �T P 1) I / nEP Q CEP OPT. i Q1,V ..,.i�,,e� Formation )T46 / r• ,t pprGX;,ate Geologic _�_ \ �- r �-� — -� TP�2 1'� / .�j / / / / Ccr :act `� •-- �� _�� /� .,.. / � ....-• dcttco •.here inferred 54 To GIFOLOGY ANC EY., LORTIO.. '// �� / 1 / EDfJfONDS VIEW PROPERTY V Edmonds, '�'Jashin;tGn j JA,_, 1 1 80-5 1 52= 02 for North%:est En,lncersno Cal I t 4 .-. v I -- --- - - - -- - -- STREET FILE EAGLES CREST IN ED 0 D M N S ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE APPLICATION APPROVAL kHZET_. Lot # JUL 10 1990 Owner/Builder a-t' L ��'� �( c� �'`/ COYNTEP Architect/Designer c Approximate Construction Dates: Start'e�W Finish j-(2- I U This submission is in accordance with the covenants, conditions, restrictions, easements, and reservations for Eagles Crest and will be used solely for the purpose of protecting the aesthetic quality of Eagles Crest. Approval does not preclude any permit requirements by the City of Edmonds. In order to adequately consider this application, it must be signed by either Owner or Builder. The following submissions are required: 1. Complete set of building plans (indicating maximum building height). 2. Exterior material color samples. 64""tl-r0.L/2-S — eomP/f--� R E LA) 3. Complete site plan, showing location of driveways, walks, underground utilities, fencing, exterior yard lighting, etc. An exterior light fixture is required at each driveway entrance from roadway located a maximum of 3' from inside sidewalk line. Fixture to be Guardian Light #t7d-5012-P.E. M.H.-100w with photoelectric cell, 42" high x 6" square bollard with dark bronze finish. Distri b Great Western Lighting. OWNER/B/ ll ' Signed I Date_ APPROVED GLS I ST ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL COMMITTEE Signed Date �ZZ_ Subject to the following: 9 EDMONDS VIEW -DIV. 1 I N I .Wad�ew. .ML' Ar�wr/ IdlO M �'b�I N LL4Y Ii /fM.YG slwbr•a .df�G AY Q !lLllfal0 w A�tK �/ I/ JMHrU M A10CIJ11 asnra r a+�s..a+o.r. �r oar ® Irom- rase mar ay.ao' d.tl' O rI'pT00' ® Mar7aT SON' LJD' NI/' ./H- jo l l ms TRIAD ASSOCIATES KIRKLMD. WA JOB NO.64-OSB SHEET OF SHEETS ray ,, ` •� I t }' Use CITY OF. EDMONDS NUMBER .•.. ."CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT AT APPLICIOSUITE/APT Z 4` ADDRESS : •''` 7J�GG OWNER NAME/NAME.OF BUSINESS 17 00.E ' LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUBDIVISION NO LID N0. w MAILING ADDRESS- 3.�� U , ' C7 , !, PUBLIC RIGHT, O,F WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. TESCP Approved ❑ CITY- ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER RW Permit Required ❑ _ �. "EXISTING `_.,_— REQUIRED DEDICATION Street Use Permit Req'd ❑ 7 7/Vi V / GtJ W / • :� / F52 I d L� rt - 1� Inspection Required PROPOSED' Sidewalk Required i NAME cc 0 REMARRKS:.; w AA w ADDRESS 1 ` Z \ S CITY 21P TELEPHONE NUMBER �+j t I 70 w. it �?vCe I� NAME . t" r'' ., tkn ENGINEERING M DATED REVIEW BY �• i ¢ ADDRESS O METERS E 1I BUILDING SPPLY SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES U /l // ¢ F/7 aZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER CITY ~ REM o /WUCL�-wJ 3 O STATE LICENSE NUMB/ER L G=�/7O� Z ' � ��% SIGN AREA SEPA REVIEW ADS N0. i WALLOWED ' PROPOSED COMPLETE EXEMPT Legal Description of Property - include all easements '" SHORELINE M ; z L o E.�t r G TZ [ A S. Exa O a VARIANCE OR CU PLA ING REVIEW BY ,7 / �jDgTE N Lmr3 Epi�avv ✓iEkw .DIV. f l w0 eC�ae" r GF SU SETBACKS —FEET HEIGHT LOT OVERAGE ? /UE57- y�ii%lSEZ- w FRONT ` C%• SIDE �J.. REAR J Tax Account Parcel No, REMARKS a y1 - "Dp SEE BACK FOR ADDITIONAL.COMMENTS NEW RESIDENTIAL ❑ PLUMBING ❑ ADDIALTER D COMMERCIAL'•' , ❑ MECHANICAL',.,, REPAIR ❑ APT. BLDG. ❑ SIGN GRADING : FENCE C,�H,jEf�CjKE�. BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION' CODE HEIGHT ❑ DEMOLISH .S. CARPORT SWIM;:',, :; ;;',w.k SPECIAL INSPECTOR AREA:' OCCUPANCY OCCUPANT ❑ REMODEL ❑ GARAGE C� POOL REQUIRED' GROUP LOAD YES.• ❑ WOOD STOVE/ ' ❑ RETAINING WALL/ ET REN�SEWAL I . 'p ' REMARKS INSERT ' ROCKERY 0z (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 3f15 p NUMBER OF STORIES, NUMBER OF '? c . DWELLING ? m Z '•:. ..•• UNITS M`/'`l -' DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) F� `FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED, VALUATION FEE t ,E' ! Luc: Bps/fi✓s1Y' ��/^' t, i PLAN CHECK FEE BUILDING PLUMBING Plan Check NO MECHANICAL This Permit covers work fo be done on private property ;ONLY GRADINGIFILL Any construction.on-the public domaim(curbs, sidewalks, driveways, mart:luees, etc.) Will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application:.180 Days " " STORM DRAINAGE FEE Permit Limit:1 Year Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days "Applicant, on behalf of his•or h'er spouse; heirs, 'assigns.and' ENO: INSPECTION FEE successors :in;intIBrest, agrees to,indemAify; defend, and hold. W harmless the .City of Edmonds, •-Washington,• .its offiCi.als'; f employees;'and agents from any and all claims•.for damages of whatever-notu�e; arising directly or indirectly from the issuance. .PAN c►+Eck DEPOSIT `�.� of this permit,., suance of. this permit s. III not be.deemed,to' o modify, waive or reduce any requir, nt ;'o zany' city ordinance i nor limit' in any way,the City's ability o enforce any ordinance TOTACAMOUNT. DUE provision.". I hereby acknowledge that l have read this application; that the' ATTENTIO7. N; APPLICATION APPROVAL information given' is correct; and that I am'the owner; or the duly;` authorized agent of: the owner: l agree to comply with city and:. THIs'PERMfT This application is not a permit until . state laws regulating.cons Ion; and in:doing th'e.work authoror. ;' AUTHORIZES r signed by the;Building Official or his/her ed thereby, no person II bee oyed:in, v_tQlatlon'of the Labor WORK NOTED '. Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is Code of the State of W shington a g to'Workmen's Compense acknowledged in space provided. tl n lnsur nC "' "INSPECTION SIGNAT E I NER O G NT) DATE SIGN D •: DEPARTMENT, OFFICIAL'S SIGNATURE-.. D TE' ;...`CITY OF EDMONDS CALL FOR 'fELEASP B DATE 'ATTENTION;. INSPECTION 8 IT IS UNLAWFUL. TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDINGVR -STRUCTURE;` 771'3202 :UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ORIGINAL —File YELL —Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS. BEEN GRANTED.:..UBC.: CHAPTER 3. PINK Owner GOLD — Assessor ;.• m M 22- ..-4 -APPDX. CY, To B�- REM L.,O NEE 3 -- - ----- d68 + VtEw m S I --v L r— w kt] 1Z CSt. 189' CITY OF-EDMONDS 250 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR •'�;' FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION si i OF THE HEARING EXAMINER L-qjiv.Nft, t. CITY OF EDMONDS i{G4i f' APPLICANT: John Thoresen CASE NO.:. V-95-97 LOCATION: 17003 72nd Place West (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 3). APPLICATION: A variance and reasonable use exception to allow the expansion of an existing, deck to intrude approximately 10-feet into the "steep slope" critical area, covering approximately 240 square feet in area. REVIEW PROCESS: Variance; Hearing Examiner conducts public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B.170 (VARIANCE). b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Chapter 20.15B.050.0 (Reasonable Use Exception). SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the application was opened at 9:00 a.m., August 28, 1996, in the Plaza Room, Edmonds Library, Edmonds,, Washington, and closed at 9:10 a.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan Hearing Examiner Decision. Case No. V 95-97 Page 2 HEARING COMMENTS: The following is a summary of the comments offered at the public hearing. From the City: Steve Bullock, Assistant Planner, representing the Planning Division, presented the Staff Report (Exhibit A). He emphasized the unique development pattern with the small lots contained in a larger parcel of land to protect open space within the steeply sloped site. He noted that the deck was the only flat, recreation area on the site. Staff recommended approval with conditions. From the Applicant: John Thoresen noted that he concurred with the staff report. He noted that when they began to repair the deck they found it was not constructed in a safe manner. Since they were essentially rebuilding the deck, they decided to expand it since, due to the steepness of the slope, this is their only recreation space. From the Community: Phil Holrayd, a neighbor, spoke in favor of the application and stated it would have not impact on the community. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS A. SITE DESCRIPTION 1. Site Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) Size: The subject property is approximately 3,920 square feet in area. The proposed deck is located in the north ' east portion of the property approximately 7-feet from the north property line (see Exhibit A, Attachments 1 and 3). 2) Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential (RS-12), and is part of an approved Planned Residential Development (File No. PRD 1-81). 3) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property is steep with slopes exceeding 65 % and has been identified as a critical area steep slope. The entire property is either within a steep slope critical area or a critical area buffer. Some, ornamental landscaping is located along the south portion of the property (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). 2. Neighboring Development And Zoning: a. Facts: 1) North: Undeveloped and zoned RS-12 (PRD 1-81). 2) South: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 3 3) East: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). 4) West: Developed with detached single-family residences, and zoned RS-12 (PRD-1-81). B. HISTORY La. Fact: The subject property is in a Planned Residential Development that was approved and developed prior to the enactment of the City's Critical Areas Ordinance. b. Fact: January 1996. Mr. Thoresen begins construction of the proposed deck without building permits or planning approval. c. Fact: March 11, 1996. The Planning Division waived the requirements for a critical area study for the deck addition. d. Fact: March 22, 1996. The Planning Division informed Mr. Thoresen that a Critical Area Variance and Reasonable Use Exception will still be required before a building permit can be issued. e. Fact: July 22, 1996. Mr. Thoresen applies for a Critical Area Variance and Reasonable Use Exception. C. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE 1. Critical Areas Compliance a. Facts: 1) This proposal is subject to review under ECDC Chapter 20.15.13 (CriticalAreas Ordinance). 2) The review of the critical areas checklist and "on -site visit resulted in the issuance of a Waiver of the study requirements for this project. 3) The applicant has provided the City with a topographical map which shows the extent of the critical area and the applicant's proposal to modify the critical area. (see Exhibit A, Attachment 4). 4) ECDC Section 20.15B.180 requires the location of the buffers and setbacks to be recorded on the property. The City has not required the recording of the buffers and setbacks since the entire parcel lies within a critical area and therefore there are no associated buffers or setbacks. If the Hearing Examiner were to approve the application as proposed, it would not be necessary to record the location of buffers and buffer setbacks, because there would be none. b. Conclusion:. The applicant has complied with the requirements of ECDC Section 20.15B.180 to the extent possible at this time. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 4 2. Compliance with RS-12 Zoning Standards a. Facts: 1) The fundamental site development standards pertaining to Residential development in the RS-12 zone are set forth in ECDC Chapter 16.20. 2) The proposed development conforms to all RS-12 requirements. b. Conclusion: The proposal complies with the development standards for RS-12 zones as set forth in Chapter 16.20. 3. Compliance with requirement for a Variance ECDC Chapter 20.15B.180.A, states an applicant may request a variance from the standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances). Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application of the, provision would result in an unusual and unreasonable hardship (see Exhibit A, Attachment 2). a. Facts: 1) ECDC Section 20.15B.180 establishes the decisional criteria with which a Critical Areas Variance request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These criteria include, Special Circumstance, and that the granting of the variance is the minimum variance necessary to accommodate the development proposal. The applicant must show that the proposal meets all of the criteria. If the variance is denied then the applicant would be eligible to apply for a reasonable use exception. In this case the applicant is making a simultaneous application for variance and reasonable use exception. 2) ECDC Section 20.15B.040(C) establishes the decisional criteria with which a Reasonable Use Exception request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. There are seven criteria, which include that the Hearing Examiner was unable to approve the request based on the criteria found ECDC Section 20.15B.180. The applicant must show that the proposal meets all of the criteria. 3) The applicant has addressed the Critical Areas Variance Criteria in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. A summary of the Applicant's Declarations follows: a) Special Circumstances: The applicant states that the proposal meets -the special circumstances criteria due to the topography of the lot and nature of the critical area. The Applicant states that the only recreational space outside of the structure itself is the deck. The applicant also states that, "It is not possible to access or construct a deck that is attached to the -house under any acceptable construction method other than the one that was used." Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 5 b) Minimum variance, not materially detrimental to the Public: There are no locations on the property for a deck which will not intrude upon the critical area. The applicant has planted ground cover and a tree under the deck to stabilize the slope. 4) The applicant has addressed the Reasonable Use Exception Criteria in Exhibit A, Attachment 3. A summary of the Applicant's Declarations follows: a) Denial of Reasonable Use: The applicant states that the strict application of the Critical Areas Ordinance would deny reasonable use of the property as intended by the planned residential development. b) No other reasonable use consistent with zoning possible: The applicant states that all surrounding property owners have developed the land with single family houses and decks. The applicant also states that failure to grant the variance would deny the property owner the rights enjoyed by adjoining property owners. Other property owners in'the PRD have constructed similar decks, although they were constructed prior to the adoption of the Critical Areas Ordinance. c) No unreasonable threat to public: The applicant states that the proposed alteration will not have any detrimental affects to the adjoining public and private improvements or steep slope critical area (see.Exhibit A, Attachment 3). d) Minimum reduction of critical area to allow for reasonable use: The proposed development protects as much of the steep slope critical area as possible, while allowing reasonable use consistent with the development potential of the underlying zoning. e) Compliance with all other State and Federal laws: The applicant states that the proposal will comply with the intent of SEPA, the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, and the Growth Management Act. f) Requested Reasonable Use Exception is not due to any current or previous owners action: The applicant states that the inability to derive reasonable economic use of the property is not the result of actions by the applicant or predecessor in title. b. Conclusions: 1) The applicant has shown that this proposal is the minimum variance. It is not possible to have reasonable use of the property and not affect the steep slope. The entire site is a critical area, therefore, unless development were completely precluded in the critical area it is necessary to allow reasonable use of the property. 2) The applicant has shown that the proposal will meet the criteria of both the Critical Areas Variance or the Reasonable Use Exception. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 6 D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE 1. a. Fact: No comments were submitted by other departments. E. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN (ECDC) 1. - a. Fact: The subject property is designated as "Single Family Large Lot". b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the existing Comprehensive Plan Land Use designation for the site. 2. a. Facts: The Comprehensive Plan, Residential Development section, identifies goals and policies which relate to "Residential Development" in the City. Specific goals and policies are discussed in detail below. 1) Section B states as a goal of the City that: "High quality residential development which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle of Edmonds residents should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically in balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following policies: " 2) Policy B.1. states, "Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding to the community identity and desirability. " 3) Policy B.2. states, "Protect neighborhoods from incompatible additions to existing buildings that do not harmonize with existing structures. " 4) Policy B.3. states, "Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or additions to existing structures. " 5) Page 31, subsection B.5.0 states, "Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic, or land use encroachments. " 6) Soils and Topography section C.3.b. Erosion Control states, "Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line. " b. Conclusion: The proposed development is consistent with the above adopted goals and policies of the City for the development of residential property in the City. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 7 DECISION Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the requests for a variance and reasonable use exception are approved, subject to the following conditions: 1. This variance is to allow the proposal in the location identified on the proposed site plan (see Exhibit A, Attachment 3). Any other structures, additions or remodels would have to conform with the typical setbacks or height requirements for the zone or obtain another reasonable use exception. 2. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds Community Development Code. It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances. 3. The applicant must obtain a building permit prior to construction. 4. The applicant shall have an inspection of the deck by a structural engineer and supply the City Building Official of copy of his findings. 5. The applicant shall record with the Snohomish County Auditors office a notice that the entire property is located within a steep slope Critical Area. 6. The permit should be transferable. Entered this 12th day of September, 1996, pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings Examiner under Chapter 20.100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds. 2�'4 4 - G'Z:). Robert G. Burke Hearing Examiner Pro Tem RECONSIDERATIONS AND APPEALS The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department for further procedural information. A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must cite specific references to the `findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed. Hearing Examiner Decision Case No. V 95-97 Page 8 B. APPEALS Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the decision being appealed. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval, the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, .unless the owner files an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County. Assessors Office. EXHIBIT: The following exhibit was offered and entered into the record. A. Planning Division Advisory Report, with attachments PARTIES of RECORD: John E. Thoreson Phil Holrayd 17003 72°d Place West No address provided Edmonds, WA 98020 Planning Division , Engineering Division Fire Department Parks Department Public Works Department CA FILE NO._ Critical Areas Checklist . ~= Site-Information:(soils/to ra h /h drol /v etation) Pog P Y Y ogY � 1. ;Site Address/Location: 2., Pioperty Tax Account Number: % �/ 7-" 000 . 00-f — O O — O 3. ;Approximate'S'6 Size (acres or square feet): 4. Is this site currently developed? _X.Jes; no. If yes; how is site developed? si"44E f ;4.* hbA+e 5. Describe the general site topography: Check'.all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. " Rolling. - slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a . .-;.`horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly:, slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30%. ( a vertical rise': of 10-feet over.a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet)_ A. , ;�;.... . 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)'.,- 9 ' 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Ot/ O ; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of,seasonal standing water: Al 0 ; Approx.-Depth:': ;f What season(s) of the year? ' y' 8. -,"Site is in the floodwa r fl y �,�(� oodplaia /Il0 of a water course: 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows apross the grounds surface? Flow5 are year-. round? /V O Flows are seasonal? * ,4 (What time of year? ey ). 10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs ;mixed = j' urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: For City Staff Use Only Fl .'Site •is bned? i Z / : + SCS mapped soil tYPe(s)?, in+e ,>�%Y':x�n/ t �jIP�C ..2:�8'�•5 �0' 3 Wetland inventory or C.A. map indicates wetland present on site?, /VO A .;Critical Areas inventory 6r'C.A..map indicates Critical Area on site? Ye S . ' c� � eS w. 'ew t •ii✓ i� �/! 3> <:Site'within'designated earth subsidence landslide6azand area? A%0 / b Site designated on the Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map? Yes J � DETERMINATION _ f STUDY RE UIRED _ CONDITIONAL WAIVER c t WAIVER 0o • w t a �Revtewed by v� e « � �. ; � ,— , •� lann y '.r,�i° 4#1-\ 7}i { • tt _ .�y{ '•ate [ � vb. - A',�� r , i K,��. IiRev01" h�r v.`• a; •r r ' . J, «sSrb, i _ it k y h - "� )a.t }• J �� ti rJ"�'"1 i ?•KT4i+s .:st`�. c9 r [ -F i. r gx4.S, n. i'Y;?Yi'Y}✓f'` ark A•n '� s7 n ru r j a '+ f, i s ..emu +r; , ,� .,. ^s �'•} >;!�•-:�,��:.;.:'.., �..-, �.�_ +s:i'?. '':` e _° '. ..�,a. ;:, ! .,:.... _ � �'t.:a:�...e,�� -� S .._;'�t�_, 5'�..X.;t c��.t .: v�:k.,. ; k . .,.<.:iifir!' 4•,�r r>r.�:t•7jye k?a,'.?�•�c..'','. +{_r i `y �t f e y. 3,54 _ �t ,'' "°°.a ?1,m '�-'t .F"y�,.i t• f G.�M?-'r f!{;. ,sr° i. t.4�� s'4 CIA! • �j' in� ` - .. .,+Z •.na� rv�. . Q f .� `��-} �\ �� of iL >�v}.3,§�j�r+�r r�t�St�'1_ a�"�e � =. - ''l 1r�1996 : ;PERMIT LINTER . � 91! '� 19 r - •. a ,S . / > _ .. �r Y City of Edmonds ya� .:.Che"-c- R;S�r ,_r Critical Ar eas kst.•....t The Critical Areas Checklist contained on and submit it, to the City.,::The City will ~ this form is to be filled out FP:r, ,. r t. reviewahe ch t bY��Y Person � .�',' ., . .. ecklist,..;make aprecursory site preparing a Development Permit visit, and make a determination of the Application for the City of Edmonds ' 4 pp prior' `�'�� + `�, f'sitbsequent steps necessary to complete a to his/her submittal of a development °`` �' .';` `'"` Bevel opment permit application. permit to the City. C� .. y a.) 5 r,. ,. r J With a signed copy of this form, the The purpose of the Checklist is to enable applicant should, also submit a .vicinity map . City staff to determine whether any ^ , or plot plan for individual lots of the parcel potential Critical Areas are or may be, with enough detail that City staff can find .present on the subjectp The - and identify the subject ° 1 s In } roperty, r. �' P� (. ). 1 information needed to 'addition; the applicant Checklist should be easily available from .bother pertinent`infornmationf(e g sites!,,.— ` observations of the site or data available at. �� ;plan, topography map, -etc.) sor studies yin City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, `maps;"" cogjuncxion with`this Checklist to assist or soil surveys). 'Staff in completing their:preliminary '° assessment of the site. An applicant, .or his/her representative, must fill out the checklist; sign and date it, I have completed the attached Critical Area. Checklist and attest that the answers provided. are...v.. . factual, to the best of my knowledge (fell out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: ,rr ,; _a ': �� :R <<'; tAPPI'�cant Representative• k`= ': �; + t :° .a:,.. .�- �'��I �. /%%t��-�'`"�i1 V '; ,i'4iy Nr"i`' . : r;•, • is "')s .y� . Name x .... Name �% /�j �: S�•.. ..4.i�:i.:r s, r.I' ,14::F^ r}{ tr J_`t ..��`.. sii��',. ,.{`_ - / / Off-/ 3 � 7�,/� �/t`(/,y ' ��t`G * �2 . ir'; u,.ai�: i... 'c+, i x . . , , �.S ) + r t s •, Street Address Street Address /vLU A��:� City, State, hone�'r City, State, ZIP 2 4,31 » a r.; Phone ' .-�. 1p,�atu e 'if1 ri7;�:� P'I)ate, r S1� b" -.u'•t 3. *,. 4� eF "X . ,, 1 x + t ; "r,B [ A�2-. +E ,s,E i- •1 Date C • �f;: - •• \ - -tt .c �t4R :° i. t--2,L,_. r a v v r j , t S ".�" 1{ - S fYi r ! r ati , fi•. t +.yy, K e c. r . •£.� ,t - ,.(r. 'r;y . b�,=.ti .C31.� y. ti-, X { . 9Y„fntifQQ��g$Svf,•! . t at � )$ ? f.'�r, � e bfl +is,t�f�_. f4ti r _+ s '� T 'a,t� �, 'ITT �',�Y {.' + :�. i+K�_• «, ;• d, -n. , :rid; e;•. sir.,}>�:.;€p,`� 4�� h'9 ,7�:v}i' °f'ii?•�ryu .�R.rYf�'i-c � � r�x� aa,�py."c`"� .rx'4ya,"'��'�'�' :,,y„ t:s3?Y� �a.;<<,^.*�.' .t +=t' r -.t':� off �*; 58 �:'.`4�.. ��' p,Y+.. e ;w ?ir { dZ,�ihys� .t.t� a,� � rRi��r� •.mo'7a:�''" '` '+°,v_ �=. t4k� u-; .�,�+..�y, a �-, d*'s .: � ` : � - �\ @J'i'ry"' -.);°S: �',�'4e•.�-y f�yyv. fS',r i�� e�f+yr! � 1 $;'•',� ar, " ric tit )S - S1 i' e�gi{ "`�..:�::: �q,�P �. q �� r T � aY• . t , r1��ti JYS!'f�k H •-°.5:`,5 �,: :Y�,yL � :�r.:t .� i. t.t Y ��1 �A �t"•� ;•,M � +H fl Y S"'7. ,,++ it Y �� `}� +� �' [ ,,�� g�-,�`� f!. i "`ig 7 - �'�,• i ' Ty . 'N' +�, i �" ,'i>'ty yEr' .a1Y t 7a. . a'� «. i, .l +' �rfE' 4 �j b,c f. {� tl Fria rt•.."ti'gi+4'""'vr 'Yl: \ iS•F.p T`n F - 4 �j' -f::;i :r '° �' .r.s+•.` .. ... � .�.•. _'r:' p„��.. .. ,.., h.:.:, ...{.. +e.$"_..u�.t ,i��•„'!..r>Fh.s^,Rdh�. :'Y� «1�. ... .S�s. ar''��K,.'�.��:�i a,r�1.+,��?JYW iSAa��t,`rv` ,,,�4��, Y'�h,¢.. �ilF. _ ' City of Edmonds Critical Areas' Determination Applicant: John E. Thoresen Determination #: CA 96-37 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 17003 72nd P. West Property Tax Acct #: 7417 000 003 00 08 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: .4 During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a Steep Slope Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope over 40% with more than 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50 foot buffer or 15 foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: For development proposals which will occur within the 50 foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50 foot -buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. All Critical Area Studies must be completed under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.150). 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.180A and 20.15B.040C). All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 of the Edmonds Community Development Code. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Name Date 2 PLANNING DATA NAM E• SITE ADDRESS: °3 2� PL j DATE: ZONING: IzS` rL POK]) PLAN CHK#: PROJECT DESCRIPTION: peck CORNER LOT -"0 (Yes/No) SETBACKS:Required Setbacks: rle�� d�- PP-0 ^ 0o� Re �'�~ '"`�,w �o•wuo �7 qda,.�. Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Actual Setbacks: Front: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: Street map checked for additional setback required? /,/n (Yes/No) LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED (Y/N) No �► Gaf C�cvox as'st9Ne-d LOT COVERAGE: P �� Maximum Allowed: Actual: BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: z s ` Actual Height: Datum Point: Datum Elevation: SUBDIVISION: J�Z26e5 cres CRITICAL AREAS #: i 6 — 3 7 SEPA DETERMINATION: LOT AREA: OTHER: ; «( 4oe�s � see U - �s - y6 Plan Review By: BUILDING FEB 13 -1996 ,rs f\-oo re A,\* -A ",6oV— fALP64, 6-C ALJA� 4rb.—A Lev.-.4 V4.4r -k k-w4t 4114L, 31 r-v-1 ,-v- AA 17 L&n IS PI.-r- p4n lu FL-k l r S lo- 3) 890-199 CITY OF EDMONDS 250 - STH AVE. N. • EDMONDS. WA 98020 • (2061771.0220 • FAX (2061771-0221 COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering LAND USE COMPLAINT FORM l(- 46' RECEIVED FEB p 2 1996 PERMIT COUNTER DATE OF COMPLAINT F�,� Z q�v PROPERTY ADDRESS OF COMPLAINT / 7003 '72h0 P4 kr PROPERTY OWNER: .%HA% T#ores2/V /Z003 724D Name Address Phone TENANT: Name Address Phone NATURE OF COMPLAINT: UL�G� �}D/�/TIDN ou t o� Foa rP�h T . Po��/�31 y �vo Bu /l0��6 �e�ryl i f 17 3 3 A. ZS e� ,u,a-x Au.ow . M Qr✓rvsu- � o ti� 3 c9 g. o ti h " FLM3sa` sTt2 T- St . / r OAgZµ'r 349 a 4-u I a EAGGe-S cR ' eDA=6$*jjjSW OW ►( Now N AS 0,A44M ,c/+EST Plif4sd Z 'i� / ', ---- __ / ')' <.rJ' P.7• .!9' E /ids i�'t' ` u, cr) 0 . ' f •� �(/0. "� ♦ . `c �•N,3�.�. 'ley ��• F LIZ )CQ ZE w ra 15 2 v m ACCE ,TABLE TIGHTLINE MATERY IL m.�L .;v' f N-12 ADS ti " • SCh 40 PVC ` " �i• ° lh o' 1'''�;;SDR 35 �ASTM D3034) ,f.0 .v.7�7•.'►'J`I•E rn �� ut ZI cE�, b4• t��ti ` / `` p3 ~a-'�. •t..r"��. n`). p'�/ � •J`LF � �) �•t, " . � �� C� t;� � !, voo •J3')v .�C1D'J9'✓5"Iv) tb S. (''a O� ny/ I c ,. Q �a `y \� tl r^ (/r cQi~ 1 p Q p O 1' / •, Y ll' ,(t ' t� �t. 1'� y �� 1, 8 E, A crr � , r _, J •rt' �Sl Y ,�?�f��•�S'pL - - vA? J'7J0"K' � � � � �i).}�iY.� /1' i'/ !)��i , d4 �1t �C ( O F iLOY�_ C� n •�:� . \ ��F E V, �•. ?' J i►• Js • +?' "`)ivi E t `b �_ \ . 1' 1 t+.� ('ip ,h ' puctW(L IF �p ' �a� �yy'/ o,y; r— �{� f14 �e�'' (r �S ,zv16 , 14 M' `�'.✓%G .�0; �— — — OCi' v' I 9� (T'�l cI\o- jor 3 ` ' 2 �.vct�•:/'. /'c ..�a7.6vA/y4 yet%• L (: y� ��— �2�. /!uc✓NS/�; 1. r . � ',i LY gr,;. NtirfL � u $� UO U 1q ;)y2Lr�'y�,�`d ��_ noarAISPOU i S , �Si J'L)hi µ�b.ifrt) 41 � m•`r)`"•E w ..a) rnrl a i . ,� cZ7 .01 r �. sr FL.rZ_ 3S8' f3Agt u tC 349 LaT 3 EAG &PAW&& 'd csw Dtv t ►(NowN AS 0-4114cea MEST NOTIC-E-n-r--F- r"TO PERMITTEE AND/�O ORa "° ❑ PARTIAL APPROVAL ❑ VIOLATION CORRECTIONS REQUIRED PERMIT NUMBER Gf/%'j�z JOB ADDRESS ! %C� .w2:e n ❑NO PERMIT — STOP WORK — REMOVE CONSTRUCTION OR OBTAIN PERMIT AND MAKE WORK COMPLY WITH BUILDING LAWS. ❑CONSTRUCTION IS NOT IN ACCORDANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT — STOP WORK. MAKE EXISTING WORK COMPLY WITH APPROVED PLANS AND PERMIT OR REMOVE IT. ❑ STOP WORK — UNTIL AUTHORIZED TO CONTINUE BY INSPECTOR. ❑CORRECTIONS LISTED BELOW MUST BE MADE BEFORE WORK CAN BE APPROVED. ❑ WORK DESCRIBED BELOW HAS BEEN INSPECTED AND IS APPROVED. ❑CONTACT INSPECTOR AND ❑ ARRANGE FOR APPOINTMENT. RECALL FOR INSPECTION. THE ACTIONS OR CORRECTIONS INDICATED ABOVE ARE REQUIRED WITHIN DAYS OR PENALTIES IMPOSED BY LAW MAY BE APPLIED. FOR INSPECTIONS CALL:.;a ` UILDING DIV. INSPECTOR PUBLIC WORKS CITY OF DATE ❑ FIRE DEPT. EDMONDSL�J APPROVED STREET FILI %I JUL 2 F, 1991 PERM COUNTER Job SrrE -7 -7 PAULJ�UC VICINITY V A P 01 D'z V(A 174 7WEij TAGS VAULT A-IS5621 A-IE5S8'5 AIr CABLE 151P.-I t 51012 S T R El- t ILf. PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST P PROJECT NAME: LAN CHECK #: 7_7z PROJECT ADDRESS: 17e9Q3 -72,-d & hl RECEIPT DATE: R -EVIEWE- D BY: (Initial/Date) PLAN. WATER COMMENTS FIRE BLDG. SEWER STREET ENG.-.': Setbacksi-Variance/Setback Adjustment Conditional Use Permit ADB Requirements Other Zoning Requirements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............ .... 4 Underground Wiring Required ------- - - - - - - 7 17#41 .5 Lot Slope 15% 1 ..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .6 SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit mit . . . . . . . . . . Tree Cutting Plan 8: Plat/Subdivision Requirements •.9 Legal Description Verification Quit Claim/Street Dedications Easements - Public/Private - - - - - - - - - - - - - . . . . . . . . Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee :5d . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 0., .............. . . . . . . . . . . 14 Drainage Plan (On -Site) Setback - To of Bank-, Stream, Water Courses .......... 0. Setba--k -Storm Drain Line - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - N".M 0 17 Open Ditch - Existing 18 Culvert Required ................ ..... . 19 Culvert -Size . . . . . .. .. . ..... . . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ..... .. Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff Catch Basin Required Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access Sidewalk Required WIN Curb & Gutter Required t5Q&T-. G b Cut For Driveway R�q�t_b u, . . . . . ..... ICU. Street Paving Required Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required -1-b Street Name Sign Required ............ 28: Other Sign ng Required 30 Bond Required For Public Improvements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31-1 FEMA Map Check/Water Table — - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Side Sewer Availability .\49-N ARL S�,6 o,V . . . . . ...... . . . . . . . . . . Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # ........... ...... .... I ... . Create Street File 85 Existing Water Main Size Water Meter Size - . ............ .......... m ------- - Ayl 611 Balm Service Line Size . . ...... ... .......... ... . 38: Water Meter Charge Required. .t!yjrant Required A Hydrant Size Existing Fire Line Charge Required - Serinkler "IA 2Street Cut O/A Aff n) : 431 [Miscellaneous Reviewed By: FIRE e; PLANNINGSTREET RtIERINhEC*Eip,I!B WORKS J U L 7 1991 PURI If: wnnw,.Q mcm PERMIT APPLICATION REQU REMENTS TO: Permit Coordinator, Building Division FROM: Lyle Chrismim-, Engineering Inspector AftOWNER: F�Sr--" ADDRESS: ) -7 3 -7zAJ PL, w After review of the subject permit application, the following requirements mustbe met. PLAN CK # l DATE: % 1. Construction hour's 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 Publicproperty. (ECDC 18.60) 3. Truck haul route plan must be submitted and approved prior to permit issuance. 4. Builder/Owner is responsible for containingall o t mporary runoff and erosion control on site. (ECDC 18' 030d) 5. Y NO WORK SHALL BE DONE WITHIN IS FEET OF STREAMS OR.10 FEET FROMANY CLOSED DRAINAGE FACIL= ITY. BUILDER/OWNE'R IS REPSONSIBLE FYIR MEN27FMG CONDITIONS ON THE DRAWING. (ECDC I8.30.SOG) (ECDC18.30) FILTER FABRIC FENCE SHALL BE INSTALLED AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO CLEARING AND CONSTR UCTION. (- 7. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEMS, TIGHTLINES, S' CATCH BASIN INSTALLATION. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BACKFII,LING. (ECDC FOUNDATION DRAINS ,AND . 8. Repair or replace all defective existing curb, gutter, and sidewalk adjacent to the roe 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 18.80.060C) property line to City RIGHT-OF-WAY. A separate perimit is required. (ECDC 11. INSPECTIONS ARE REQUIRED ON DRIVEWAYS AND SIDE (ECDC 18.30) WALKS PRIOR TO AND AFTER POURING. 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 7.30) 14. A back water valve is required if downstairs plumbing is below the elevation of upstream manhole. (ECDC 7.20) 1S. 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 r red. LID!/ ISLI Fees paid: Yeses_ No Charge(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 18.05.010) 18. A FINAL ENGINEERING INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PRIOR TO THE BUILDING DIVISION GRANTING OCCU- PANCY OF THE BUILDING OR STRUCTURE. (ECDC 18.90) 19. 20. STREET FILE S%4`s+dMw�4.�%�^1 x+i+�%�wapwJY`dz4'', R.�h�F�+ Y �• �+rV`YKi+F�7{y��N�'ii+F'�1'iZ,'.:�d�t^i'Irt'Yi%4�'T9"+`:s„i^'ZT,'7,�,C,j�;y'�momw��•. r,�,,.,. MU+l�yvr++�ar,. �_ �`r.'P've a Z 0 W a U a 0 cz, CI1 Y: OF EDMONDS STREETTEiRvEopermit No. q I 330 COMMUNITY' SERVICES DEPARTMENT RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT EN 1.9..91 Issue Date A. • Owner: Washington Natural Gas Company B. • Contractor: Name Name 815 Mercer Street Mailin .Address Mailing Address SeattleWA 98111 City State Zip City State Zip State License Number Telephone Number C. • Address or Vicinity of Construction: 17003 72 Place West Type of Work to be Done: Install New Service D. • Work in Connection With: ❑ Sub or Plat K Single Family ❑ City Projects ❑ Commercial ❑ Multifamily "• ❑ Utility E. • Pavement Cut: ❑ Y E3N F. • Size of Cut: X No cuts APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN 4 INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, forseen or unforseen, 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, court cost and attorney fees reason of granting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WOI� INSH i� 21VIA�ERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE :TRK. 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.. • A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call Engineering: 771-3202 • Work is to be inspected during progress and at completion. • Restoration to be in accordance with City Code. • Street to be kept clean at all times. • Traffic Control to be in accordance with City regulations. • All street -cut ditches must be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to end of working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. I understand the above and that this permit must be available at the job site for inspection purposes at all. times. Signature: Dater September 16, 1991 Owner or Contractor This Permit Must be Posted at the Job Site For.Inspection Purposes Call DIAL -A -DIG Prior to Beginning Work APPROVED BY: RAJ Time Authorized: Void after y�Z" days. Special Conditions: _ W A, RELEASED BY: PERMIT FEE: Restoration Fee: Receipt No.: Fund III Fee: Street Cut Dimensions: X = $ Dateq 1/ INSPECTED BY NO WORK TO BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Date C•ng. Div. March 1989 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund I I I - Route copy to Street Dept.) '` Comments: Diagram: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION ❑ YES ❑ NO Partial Work Inspection by P. W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Eng. Div. July 1985 �o Washington Natural Gas A Washington Energy Company Addendum to City of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Application V-7DDS 72 Ply W �-* WNG to window *Water main depth unknown 0/4-" gas main Submitted by: Kerry Walsh Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 622-6767 x2761 pager 995-6914 —W— WCXI-=L -g- gas -ss- sewer water hydrant 815 Mercer St. (P.O. Box 1869), Seattle, WA 98111 (206) 622-6767 STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 . (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT PETER E. HAHN J p Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering DIRECTOR 890 19 May 15, 1992 Dean Dariotis Leghorn Enterprises P. 0. 'Box 1188. Mukilteo, WA 98275 Re: Engineering 'Field. Inspection, 17003 - 72nd P1. W. > Dear Dean, Enclosed is the correction notice 1 promised. The damaged sidewalk and gutter are a result of the equipment used to stockpile and' remove the excavated material for the subject property. The work should 'be corrected within two (2) weeks. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220, extension 325.. Sincerely, ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt Enclosure DARIOTIS/TXTST530 • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan did �it:�t:1�:::�: tjlY::• �C•'•.•• :'` :},��,'�^.' J:iy:'1:t�Y�Y: � � ;f �l. Ls. � ;..r :,:� •. � .. ,.; , .:fib'' 1, l'X$..�,�� i " 'Y j :•: 1. ' ; 'J. �}A. F�. ::j:,::�, 1'�"�'�':r'rir�• :.�:a►•:' ,?': y�+}��,, ,tf:�r"=y�-' irlti.r. _o z = A a (AH a z w eF 3 0 u o ? o3 a� � 3 N a > z w ov d o z V 3 O a �o . A Lu x 3 H z w a s z CA �z.. z A El o Q' 0 V o; U 0 a a Z U F- w 4 t� w z r-a 0 E-•4 > 3 z w a o a: W(� O F- W •`y N pq 0 a a10 <-a 0 o x > U aoga Boa w 3 zH \ 00 H3Q Q a az 4 H ❑ ❑ ® Uf a. zo< d w oo A A. °u \ �< z I o �w w w< A p• a . S i z 00 O O Oxoa F� O Ca �T za Ada v 3 �a ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ ❑ El ►fir z w A 0 O z U w 3 a a � w o, Q < 3 > ..4 ' °m wWQ a. U 'Lu U 2 z w Z FCD oZZ t� w z - a o� a a 0 cn o � 0 Z w o 0 .�Uw r-� ST5,F.- T FILE �4-�e�olwl &R&74�d� 111c General Contractors Residential . Commercial o Remodel LE-GH-01'214OG May 22, 1992 Addison L. Chrisman IV, Engineering Inspector Community Services Department City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave. N. Edmonds, Wa. 98020 RE: ENGINEERING FIELD IINSIP]ECTIION,17003 - 72N D ]PL. W. Dear Sir: We are in receipt of your letter dated May 15, 1992 concerning the field inspection of the above referenced project. As I discussed with you on the phone, the sidewalk and curb were damaged prior to our commencing work. It appeared to us that heavy trucks drove on the sidewalk and cracked it. Similar damage can be seen in many areas of the sidewalks in this development. Perhaps the ground on which the concrete was cast was not prepared correctly. In any regard, we are not responsible for this damage. We do not intend to repair these in alks urbs. r ly, Dariotis, Project Manager (206) 745-3577 P.O. Box 1188 . MUKILTEO, WA 98275 SINCE 1975 890-199 1 L CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - 5TH AVE. N. • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (206) 771-0220 • FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT Public Works • Planning . Parks and Recreation . Engineering Mailed 6/10/92 June 9, 1992 n Dean Dariotis, Project Manager Leghorn Enterprises, Inc. P. 0. Box 1188 Mukilteo, WA 98275 SUBJECT: SIDEWALK DAMAGE ADJACENT TO 17003 - 72ND AVE. W. Dear Mr. Dariotis, Prior to doing any project review, a site visit is always conducted to verify the information provided and identify any problems. When the site visit was conducted, no damage to the sidewalk or curbing was seen. As was stated in our letter dated May 15, 1992, we contend the damage was caused by the backhoe operators and heavy -trucks during the construction of the subject residence. Although other sidewalk areas within the development may show signs of damage due to construction, the area in question had no damage as is evident now. Until the repair work is done, we cannot sign the permit card as having met all engineering requirements. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220, extension 324. Sincerely, 4�.� xc-///�..wer� ADDISON L. CHRISMAN IV Engineering Inspector ALC/sdt DARIOTIS.2/TXTST530 Alberts • Incorporated August 11, 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan ----„.`r.Ni.�t+Ppwr-(t.�if'-'`^�Nwr', n �f(�' T'-do7 -i t �""fo,S� y�,� , �f1' .f1M-S'i*r,t„S°y`;b"aw•+zt-"�.i,.Y"'+.-'.b„s, r'a.s77 ��"Y'gq'� jP'`r'. '7r`!u"'� J °S'v" �P !ua( •, fhf�J`v�=�,'.�" _ CITY�OF EDMO E .SIDE :SEWO -PERMIT �g90_1,90° ..PERMIT NO 8431 70o3 — �" R W . II Maws w� Address of Construction: I' ` Property Legal Description (Include all easements): / JAN 7LyNN\A100D LINE nl In, i(: vinRKS DFPT Owner and/or Contractor: State License No. Le C�F 0 -1 )4- Sin le Family Y ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public _7_f-aR4T5 e7_� 00AJVR Building Permit No. 91n Invasion into City Right -of -Way: Q No ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: D"No ❑ Yes . Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certify that 1 �ave read and Mall comply with all city requirements as in( icat d on the back of the Permit Card.' Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION OFFICE USE ONLY * FOR INSPECTION QALL !11 PUBLIC WORKS DEPT. 3a Permit Fee: Issued ByIVA l Trunk Charge: �,,S7 ' 70 Date Issued: ' ZL/� 93c�9Assessment 9 Fee: . Receipt No.: Lid No.: Partial Inspection: r Date Initial Comments E Reason Rejected: '; Date Initial i Final Inspection Approved:.Date 2S 1nitia161�_— ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Bull Copy: Applicant Revised 3196 Side Sewer Drawing The City Of Edmonds EASEMENT NO. -------------------------------------------- j NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS ❑ LID NO - ------------------ -ASMT. NO. ........... ._..--. t OWNER-------------------------•---------------------••---•---•----------------------------------•---- CONTRACTOR ------- PERMIT NO. --7 w o JOB ADDRESS (O l� L- - ..----------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO. ----------------------- ----------- - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - • - - - • - - - - - - - - - - NAMEOF ADDITION---------•-•---•-•----------------•-•------••----•-------- ------------.----------------------------------------------- MJH �O, p � ,�� c a co • �/ 30 ------ ❑-�� i LY t,,ti ;,t; vOC LI NC C•� Cu y I 1 � r PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78) 4 Ia�uTE: t ��; s ��Nc ; s Susfe,Joe� 1 04 SupPotC r3¢A�hs Iron JARA / � J 0 Approved: Q DATE . a .'.. 5..'... `- 3 �� 54 �e�f ,GIB STREET FILE ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT COUNCIL SNOHOMISH COUNTY July 13, 1992 Mr. Addison L. Chrisman IV Engineering Inspector City of Edmonds 250 5th Ave N. Edmonds, Wa 98020 Dear Mr. Chrisman: 917 - 134th STREET S.W. SUITE 103 EVERETT, WASHINGTON 98204 (USA) (206) 743-4567 FAX: 745-5563 RSCEIWF- J 11I 1 3 1,992 kNQ1lVEtH1NQ- Thank you for your letter of July 10 informing me of your decision to issue my final occupancy permit. I appreciate the professionalism and logical approach to these matters that you and the others of the City of Edmonds have exhibited. As president of the Economic Development Council I am always working with companies that are interested in locating or expanding to the area. I only wish there were more opportunities in the City of Edmonds because I have found that other jurisdictions within Snohomish County can't seem to find a way to balance quality of life with real world logical approaches to dealing with issues. For your information, our Homeowners Association met on July 4 and we are getting bids to fix all the sidewalks and-curbing_in the development. I agree with you that the responsibility for repairing the curbing and sidewalks damaged by my contractor rests with that contractor. Therefore, I will be deducting from the contractors final draw, the cost to repair and replace the work you identified. This money will then be turned over to the Homeowners Association. I will contact you at the proper time before work commences on repairs and replacement for the entire PRD to make sure we are complying with City standards. I look forward to working with you in the future. Best re a-fds, /E. Thoresen ident . �T FILE MAILED 7/10/92 sTR CITY OF EDMONDS LAURA M. HALL 250 - STH AVE. N. EDMONDS, WA 98020 (206) 771-0220 •FAX (206) 771-0221 MAYOR COMMUNITY SERVICES DEPARTMENT 1 p Public Works • Planning • Parks and Recreation • Engineering 890 19 July 10, 1992 Mr. J. Thoresen 17003 72nd Place W. Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Replacement of Damaged Sidewalk & Curbing Adjacent to 17003 72nd Avenue Dear Mr. Thoresen: During our final inspection of your new residence, we noted several sections of sidewalk and curbing, adjacent to your property, was damaged by your contractor. As a matter of standard procedure, we have the contractor replace any damage he causes and will not sign off on the permit until the corrections are made. We feel the contractor should be held accountable for replacing those sections of damaged curbing and sidewalk as identified. In our last telephone conversation, you stated the Homeowners Association was planning to repair all damaged sidewalks and curbing in your development. Since the roads and sidewalk are private and the association wants to get the repairs done, we will not hold up your final any longer even though we feel the contractor should repair what he' damaged. All work on the sidewalks and curbing must meet City standards and must be inspected to ensure compliance. If you have any questions, please call me at 771-0220. Sincerely, Addison L. Chrisman IV Engineering Inspector ALC/dm Word\Eng Floppy\Thoresen • Incorporated August I]. 1890 • Sister Cities International — Hekinan, Japan