Loading...
17020 74TH AVE W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 15929 17020 74TH AVE W City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: CC k M I-d -- Property Owner: 54-v� Critical Area File #: Ce i-e (6 o © —7 Permit Number: L- D Z o % Z / Site Location: (?20 1 Parcel Number: 005(30001--2-rS Project Description: ❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. 1. There will be no alteration of a,Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. ❑ Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. ❑ Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.1,60 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. (Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. ❑ Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). 4 1 ,( (Vt' f Cl- Reviewer id &IIA Signature b I A Date Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 e® C IN Property Owners Name: D - er_ �� �'u As essorIS parcel Site Address: /7oT O -7 vA / IVA Site Plan STREET FILE North I T Legend: ---- properly line Building perimeter Map Scale: 1" (in) = 20'(ft) RECEIVED DEC 0 7 2015 DEVEIATM CTR OF EDMONDS STREET FILE Memo for Record Date: October 12, 2005 To: File a From: Noel Mille 6 Public W rks erector Re: Hillside Drainage at 17020 — 74th Avenue West I met with Nancy Marsh on October 6, 2005 to review her drainage problems on her property. Earlier in the day I met with the neighbors uphill from her property at 7521 —172"d St. SW, 7529 —172nd St. SW, and 17110 — 74th Avenue West. I could find no evidence that these properties were connected to the 6" drain line which conveys the drainage from the Marsh residence, as well as groundwater from the hillside. I gave Nancy a copy of the geotechnical report and site drainage map for her property which I found in the street address files at City Hall. She indicated to me that she was proceeding to solve the drainage problems on her property by installing a new drain line separate from the one on her neighbors property owned by Karen Myers. I recommended that she needed to take into consideration the existing groundwater which drains through the existing 6" pipe on Karen Myers' property and to allow for the groundwater to continue to drain off this hillside. Wordata/Adm n/17020 74" Hillside Drainage STREET FILE Hillside Groundwater Problem Residents Involved pO• ft'3 D. Wachkerbarth & C. Houser 7521 —172"d St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Stephen & Margaret Lee �` 7 17110 — 74 Ave. W. o t 010 b ( 31- Edmonds, WA 98026 2ou , -7�2 _ 2-7-z1 Mitsura Kurosaka 7529 — 172"d St. SW Edmonds, WA 98026 Z��✓ Cn�S ..2C°i� Nancy M. Marsh 17020 — 74" Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 Clare & Karen Meyers 17103 — 76th Ave. W. Edmonds, WA 98026 WordataWnWHillside Groundwater Problem Residents '2ot9 - L4U) — 59 S 2) 141-S-- q�)6-35Lt? STREET FILE CITY OF E D M O N D S GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • 7110 - 210TH ST. S.W. • EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 771.0235 • FAX (425) 744.6057 • E-MAIL: klein&i.edmonds.wa.us Ih C. 18913 WEB SITE: wwwxi.edmonds.wa.us September 23, 2005 Re: Hillside Groundwater Problems Dear Resident: This letter is to advise you that one of your neighbors is experiencing a significant amount of excess of groundwater on their property. This water originates on the hillside you live on and drains through a common pipe adjacent to your property. This pipe periodically becomes plugged which results in water backing up into the crawl space of your neighbor's house. City records indicate that this pipe is not owned by the City and was installed as the properties developed on the hillside. The City requests that you attend a neighborhood meeting to discuss the problem in further detail and develop a workable solution to this problem. Please contact my assistant Linda Klein at 425-771-0235 and let her know times and dates during this week or the following week that would fit your schedule. Please note the following list of neighbors that are being notified and if you know of any other properties that drain to this pipe, please contact me: 7521 — 172nd St. SW 7529 —172nd St. SW 17103 — 76th Ave. W Sincerely, Noel F. Miller, P.E. Public Works Director NM/lk cc: Dave Gebert, P.E. City Engineer 17110 — 74th Ave. W. 17020 — 74th Ave. W. WordataWdmin\Hillside Groundwater Problem Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan STREET FILE CITY OF EDMONDS Public Works - Engineering ACTION REPORT No 6384 .r SUSPENSE DATE: DATE: Q Q TIME: ! • ?� ATTACHMENTS: 0 YES NO SUBJECT: REQUESTOR: NAME:' VJ ADDRESS:1 PHONE: REQUEST RECEIVED BY: TELEPHONE CONTACT IN OFFICE 0 OTHER: --- 0 i � y RECEIVED BY: !s ROUTETO: / e i # NAME INIT. DATE COMMENTS 2 3 ACTION: C i LJ, T b RETURN TO PUBLIC WORKS ACTION COMPLETED/FILE 0 CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT • 7110 — 210TH ST. S.W. • EDMONDS, WA 98026 (425) 771.0235 • FAX (425) 744.6057 • E-MAIL: klein@ci.edmonds.wa.us 411 C. 18911 WEB SITE: www.ci.edmondsma.us January 30, 2004 Nancy Myers 17020 — 74`h Ave. W . Edmonds, WA 98026 Re: Neighborhood Drainage System Dear Resident: The City has reviewed your concerns about the drainage pipeline adjacent to your respective properties. The drainage pipeline in question is located on private property and within a City utility easement granted to the City for the installation, operation, and maintenance of a sanitary and/or storm sewer. Even though the drainage pipeline (which could be considered also a storm sewer) is within the utility easement granted to the City, I find that the drainage pipeline is privately owned based on the following information: 1. When the sanitary sewer was constructed in 1969 by a local improvement district (L.I.D.), City records show that a drainage pipeline did not exist at the time and that only a sanitary sewer pipeline was constructed by the City as part of the L.I.D. The City drawing does show that a small creek ran down the hillside parallel to the sanitary- sewer beginning approximately 440 feet east of 76'h Avenue West. 2. .The existing drainage pipe carries primarily groundwater along with surface runoff from one of the adjoining properties. The pipeline does not carry any stormwater runoff from public streets. 3. 1 find no records in the city files showing that the city constructed this pipeline; or, that a .developer constructed and deeded the pipeline to the City; or, a drawing depicting this pipeline as a City drainage pipe. Please be aware when infrastructure improvements are made by private parties with the intention that they be accepted by the City, a formal dedication process is required. 4. No general benefit to the public exists from existence of this drainage pipeline. Benefits exist exclusively to the adjoining property owners since the pipeline conveys groundwater from a localized area of private property on the hillside and serves as a point of connection for one residential property, as can best be determined by City field investigations and records. Therefore, the City considers this drainage pipeline to be private and the maintenance responsibility of all the property owners who benefit from the conveyance of groundwater or surface water. The City disagrees with the assertion that this drainage pipe should be the responsibility of the City because of its location within a City storm sewer utility easement. There are other instances in the City where private drainage pipes exist within City owned or controlled oroperty. Unless someone can provide other records which indicate that the City owns the Neighborhood Drainage System January 30, 2004 Page 2 drainage pipeline, the ownership and maintenance remains with the property owners who benefit from this drainage pipeline. This situation is analogous to a private roadway which provides a benefit of access to a limited number of property owners. Please note that City records show that this is the natural drainage course for the properties that are adjacent to the pipeline. Thus, properties that subsequently developed have an inherent right of connection as long as either the rate of stormwater/runoff from the property does not increase from the predevelopment runoff rate; or adequate downstream conveyance capacity is provided. Lastly, if any excavation work is planned to repair or modify the existing drainage system, please notify the City Development Services Department prior to starting the work so that they can be advised of the work and determine whether a City permit is required. Please contact my office if you have any further information or questions regarding the matter. Sincerely, Noel F. Miller, P.E. Public Works Director NM/lk cc: Duane Bowman, Development Services Scott Snyder, City Attorney Street Address Files: 17029 — 76th Ave. W. 17103- 76`h Ave. W. 17020 — 74`h Ave. W. 7529 - 172"d St. SW CITY of EDMONDS SIDE SEWER - PER, For Inspection Call 771-3202 STREET FLE PERMIT NO. oQ��oj Address of Construction: l %Q 62 0 % e/ 7 `0 Property Legal Description (Include all easements): Owner and/or Builder: ��y/� T2�7(2 2 Contractor & License No: 14��c Single Family Residence / Multi -Family (No. of Units ..,r.r,.000 LINE EyNNWOOD LINE Commercial (No. of fixture Units ) Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No �0 Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No 1 Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE READ THE ITEMS LI ED ON THE BACK C ` RE(;t, vE� � � I certify that I h e read and shall comply AUG 17 1989 ate with the items listed on the back. PUBLIC WORKS Permit Fee: $ 30. 00 Trunk Charge: 'a?5.00 Assessment Fee: 10L/ - i Issued By: '—M .� Date Issued: 8-A0 -�� Receipt No.: /09,61 Partial Inspection: Comments Date Initial Final Inspection Approved: Date I itia1 Rejected: White Copy - File son Date Initial ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** Green Copy - Inspector Buff Copy - Applicant Side Sewer Drawing i The City of Edmonds a� EASEMENT NO. -•--•------------------------•-------------- y • NEW CONSTRUCTION J[( REPAIRS ❑ LID NO_ __________________ ASMT. NO. -___._.__-______-_ OWNER CONTRACTOR _____________Q.N� __-__--'`� ------•-•-------------------------------•-------------------------------•------..........__.._..•-------...-----------•--•---------..... PERMIT NO. Q-Ql�-- - JOB ADDRESS ----•---- --------- --------------1---...-•------�U--�C----'--•----�Y-'---- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO. . ---•------------------------------- PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78) LYNNWpOD LINE mm `(Fvt �� r4 Approved: / DATE ............. BY`f-"--------��--- -•- CITY OF EDMONDS r rr 'PLE'ASSET INFORMATION SHEET N . S NEW ASSET • ❑ ADDITION ADDITION TO ASSET NO. ❑ RETIREMENT DESCRIPTION �" -e,12— -�wr \j ESLylj SERIAL NO. LOCATION ( O � O (, tn^ 4e_ C DEPT. NO. " ` PURCHASE ORDER NO. PURCHASE ORDER DATE COST PROJECT NUMBER U f9 �7SOV c PROJECT COMPLETION DATE 1 U U COST � a-19a B.A.R.S. ACCOUNT NO. -III OOd —O I7 — r S"OOCo-:S ESTIMATED LIFE �S INITIATED BY DATE APPROVED BY "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET WITH FINAL PAYMENT REQUEST "SUBMIT ASSET INFORMATION SHEET UPON CLOSE OF PROJECT ACCOUNTING ONLY DEPRECIATE MONTHLY DEPRECIATION AMOUNT ANNUAL DEPRECIATION AMOUNT G.L. ENTRY REFERENCE b P INITIAL DATE VERIFIED BY PROCESSED BATCH NO. DEPARTMENT FILE I WATER SPECIALTIES CO.,INC. 12853 N.E. 83rd ST. Kirkland, WA 98033 IS: 827-4964 STREET FILE 'i CITY OF EDMONDS -- PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT BACKFLOW DEVICE TEST REPORT NAME OF PREMISES Joe & Nancy Marsh A SERVICE ADDRESS 17020-74th Avenue S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 iI LOCATION OF DEVICE West side of driveway, in front of bay window. DEVICE: WATTS 709 i i•lanufacturer Model 'LINE PRESSURE AT TIME OF TEST 140 LBS. PRESSURE DROP ACROSS FIRST CHECK VALVE 1" 127153 Size Serial No. LBS. _ CHECK VALVE NO. 1 CHECK VALVE NO. 2 DIFFERENTIAL PRESSURE RELIEF VALVE INITIAL 1. LEAKED ❑ 1. LEAKED ❑ 1. OPENED AT LBS. TEST 2 CLOSED TIGHT 11 2. CLOSED TIGHT )M REDUCED PRESSURE 2. DID NOT OPEN i CLEANED ❑ CLEANED ❑ CLEANED REPLACED: REPLACED: REPLACED: DISC ------------- D DISC -=----------.- Cl DISC.UPPER------_--------- SPRING -- ❑ SPRING ❑ DISC. LOWER -- [ E GUIDE ------------ ❑ GUIDE ------------ ❑ SPRING -------------------------- [ P PIN RETAINER ----- ❑ PIP! RETAINER----- ❑ DIAPHRAGM, LARGE A HINGE PIN -------- ❑ HINGE.PIN-------- ❑ UPPER -------------- [ I SEAT ------------= ❑ SEAT------------- Cl LOWER ------------------------- [ R DIAPHRAGMI-------- ❑ DIAPHRAGM-=------ ❑ DIAPHRAGM, SMALL S OTHER, DESCRIBE -- ❑ OTHER, DESCRIBE -- ❑ UPPER ------------------------- [ LOWER--------------- [ SPACER, LOWER OTHER, DESCRIBE FINAL OPENED AT LBS. TEST CLOSED TIGHT----- ❑ CLOSED TIGHT----- ❑ REDUCED PRESSURE REMARKS: Installed plugs in all test cocks. ,THE ABOVE REPORT IS CERTIFIED TO BE TRUE: INITIAL TEST PERFORMED BY Denise M. Unger OF Water Specialties Co. REPAIRED BY I FINAL TEST PERFORMED BY OF DATE 10-29-90 DATE DATE 10, GEOTECH STREET FILE CONSULTANTS .s P 2 0 10039 13240 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 1 COUNTER (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 October 11, 1988 JN 88359 Roth Homes 179 Bothell Way Southeast, Suite 105 Bothell, Washington 98012 Attention: Gary Roth Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single -Family Residence Parcel 3, Tract 122, Meadowdale Beach Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for a proposed single-family residence to be constructed at the above -referenced site in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site conditions and provide earthwork and foundation design criteria. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with two test pits. We found the site to be underlain by medium dense sands and silts at shallow depths. The sand units were generally wet to saturated. In our opinion, the proposed structure may be constructed using conventional spread footing foundations. Adequate subsurface drainage will be necessary to maintain a dry basement and continued slope stability. We believe the core of the hillside is stable and will remain so given adequate precautions during the earthwork and drainage phases of the project. The attached report contains a more detailed discussion of the study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 00" AV James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. 's A eers�v SEP 2 0193q Roth Homes ;�.. PERMIT, CCU. KIER JN 88 359 October 11, 1988 Page 4 SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed competent native soils or on structural fill. The slab should also be provided with a minimum of four (4) inches of free draining sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil. plastic membrane should be placed beneath the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by the structures. Walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to at least 0.002 times the wall height can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) .pounds per cubic foot (pcf) . If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, a uniform force of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot (psf) should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure force. For calculating the base resistance to sliding, we recommend using a passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pcf and a coefficient of friction of 0.40. It is assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall and that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If surcharges are to be applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Alternatively, a geotextile drainage product such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used. The purpose of this is to assure that the -design criteria for the retaining wall is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. 2666 _ 8k> K It *,,, 3� 0 1760, V) 12, x6v` x Z _ /910� S` >2 )e &1 x 3 4) & x 180 X y /o G Y4- 4S g-.r 3 g- y4,,cir g,"C� 35- y,—ax- Fdl -1 / yf Ali /© -i 11 7i All Al,g; /� i/4.�s fi ll v r M,Vcd . OCT 0 g )qo PERMIT COUNTER OCT OA1901 PERMIT COUNTER lhlgRs f goz, Loi6 Lo.i,:, OCT 0 S 11019 PERMIT COUNTER A fief GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13240 N.E. 20th St. (Northup Way), Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747-5618 (206) 343-7959 STREET FILE 0-saf "P, October 11, 1988 JN 88 359 Roth Homes 179 Bothell Way Southeast, Suite 105 Bothell, Washington 98012 Attention: Gary Roth Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Study Proposed Single -Family Residence Parcel 3, Tract 122, Meadowdale Beach Edmonds, Washington Gentlemen: We are pleased to present this geotechnical engineering report for a proposed single-family residence to be constructed at the above -referenced site in Edmonds, Washington. The purpose of our work was to explore site conditions and provide earthwork and foundation design criteria. The subsurface conditions of the proposed building site were explored with two test pits. We found the site to be underlain by medium dense sands and silts at shallow depths. The sand units were generally wet to saturated. In our opinion, the proposed structure may be constructed using conventional spread footing foundations. Adequate subsurface drainage will be necessary to maintain a dry basement and continued slope stability. We believe the core of the hillside is stable and will remain so given adequate precautions during the earthwork and drainage phases of the project. The, attached report contains a more detailed discussion of the study and recommendations. If there are any questions, or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. 00"AV James R. Finley, Jr. P.E. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PROPOSED SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE PARCEL 3, TRACT 122, MEADOWDALE BEACH EDMONDS, WASHINGTON This report represents the results of our geotechnical engineering study of the site of the proposed Marsh single- family residence in Edmonds. The legal description of the site is: Parcel 3 of Tract 122, Meadowdale Beach, Volume 5, Page 38, Snohomish County. The general location of the site is illustrated on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. Based on a plot plan furnished to us and discussions with our client, we anticipate that the building will consist of a wood -frame, single-family residence having two stories and a detached garage. A daylight basement under part of the house is also planned. Development of the property is in the planning stage and, therefore, only a site plan was available to us. The site plan given to us included the footprint of the proposed structure, however, it did not provide topographic information. SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The property is rectangular in shape, measuring about 91 feet north -south and 221 feet east -west. Located in the upper reaches of a west -facing slope overlooking Brown's Bay on Puget Sound, the site slopes gently in the eastern half and moderately to steeply in the western portion. The eastern part of the property is nearly barren of vegetation except for a lone cedar tree and sparse ground cover. The sloping, western portion of the site is vegetated with scattered coniferous trees and dense undergrowth. A very large rock is situated near the top of the steep slope on the north property line. Access is via an. easement from 172nd Street Southwest to the northeast corner of the property.. Roth Homes October 11, 1988 SUBSURFACE JN 88359 Page 2 The subsurface conditions were explored by two test pits at the approximate locations shown on Plate 2. The test pits were excavated on October 5, 1988 with a rubber -tired backhoe provided by our client. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits and obtained representative samples of the soils encountered. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plate 3. The uppermost soil unit consists of two to three feet of loose, brown to gray, silty sand in the western portion of the building site, and three feet of soft brown peat with sand layers in the eastern part. Underlying the topsoil we encountered wet, medium dense to dense, silty sands with occasional silt layers. 1q gravel layer about,one foot thick was, found at a depth of nine and one-half feet in the eastern test= groundwater was encountered in the gravel layer. Both test pits bottomed in the sand unit at a depth of eleven feet. The final logs represent our interpretations of the field logs and the results of the laboratory examination and tests of field samples. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundary between soil types. In actuality, the transition may be gradual. The relative densities indicated on the test pit logs are interpretative descriptions based on the conditions observed during the excavation. GROUNDWATER 00roundwater seepage was observed at a ',depth of four and, Qoi a -half to nine and one-half feet. The test pits were left open only for a short time period, therefore, the seepage levels recorded represent the location of water seepage in the side of the test pit. It should be noted, however, that groundwater levels vary with rainfall and other factors. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL We explored the subsurface conditions of the site with two test pits in which we encountered medium dense to dense sands, ' ...+1'se.nr•Mse antd silt at relatively shallow depths, TVA,,e sands are wet Roth Homes JN 88 359 October 11, 1988 Page 3 Ceccming saturated at seven to eitght feet. The competent native sands are capable of supporting structural loads normally associated with residential construction. In our opinion, the proposed house may be constructed using conventional spread footing foundations placed directly on well prepared surfaces of the native, medium dense to dense sand. An excavation for a daylight basement, we are told, will result in a cut whose height will not exceed eight feet. The cut slopes must be adequately sloped, and the excavated soils should not be loose - dumped onto the steep slope to the west of the. building site. We point out that properly designed and constructed foundation drains and interior drains, will be necessary to protect below - grade spaces. FOUNDATIONS ,The proposed structure may be supported on conventional ;continuous and spread footings bearing on the competent native sand soils underlying the topsoil. Overexcavation of soil below the footing may be required depending on final site grades. Exterior footings should be bottomed at a minimum depth of twelve (12) inches below the lowest adjacent outside finish (grade. Footings founded on competent native soils may be -designed for an allowable soil bearing. capacity of two thousand (2000) pounds per square foot (psf). Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of sixteen (16) and twenty-four (24) inches, respectively. A one-third increase in the above bearing pressures may be used when considering short term wind or seismic loads. For this design criteria, it is anticipated that total settlement of footings founded on the native sandy soils will be about one inch, with differential settlements of approximately one-half inch.. Almost all settlement due to dead loads from the building structure should occur during construction. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundations and the supporting compacted fill subgrade or by passive earth pressure on the foundations. For the latter, the foundations must be poured "neat" against the existing soil or backfilled with a compacted fill meeting the requirements of structural fill. A coefficient of friction of 0.40 may be used between the structural foundation concrete and the supporting subgrade. The passive resistance of undisturbed natural soils and well compacted fill may be taken as equal to the pressure of a fluid . having a density of three hundred (300) pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Roth Homes JN 88359 October 11, 1988 Page 4 SLAB -ON -GRADE FLOORS Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed competent native soils or on structural fill. The slab should also be provided with a minimum of fo our (4) inches of free dr 0i#ng sand or gravel. In areas where moisture is undesirable, barrier,,.such as a 6-milz plastic membrane fshpAd be placed beneath the slab. PERMANENT RETAINING AND FOUNDATION WALLS Retaining and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. Walls that are designed to yield an amount equal to at least 0.002 times the wall height can be designed to resist the lateral earth pressure imposed by an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five (35) pounds per cubic foot (pcf) . If walls are to be restrained at the top from free movement, a uniform force of one hundred (100) pounds per square foot (psf) should be added to the equivalent fluid pressure force. For calculating the base resistance to sliding, we recommend using a passive pressure equivalent to that exerted by a fluid having a density of three hundred (300) pcf and a coefficient of friction of 0.40. It is assumed that no hydrostatic pressures act behind the wall and that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If surcharges are to be applied, they should be added to the above lateral pressures. Retaining and foundation walls should be backfilled with compacted free -draining granular soils containing no organics. The wall backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt or clay and no particles greater than four inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. Allternatively, a geotextile drainage prodiuet such as Miradrain or Enkadrain may be used ;W61;Jp;�u,�pose f'th;i is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wYa;�l is not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic ( pr?e�VeUre behind the wall. SITE DRAINAGE WAe��;recommend the use of footing drains �avt the base of all foot-ing" „and earth retaining walls. Properly constructed interior drains at the low point of each elevation change will also be necessary. 4Roorf .and;: surface water drains must be kept s,&,,axzte from the foundation drain system. TZhe, ,fo-oting drains Roth Homes JN 88359 October 11, 1988 Page 5 should be surrounded by at least six inches of one -inch -minus washed rock. The rock should be wrapped with non -woven -geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar materials) . '_At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and/or 'crawl space and it should be sloped for drainage. A typical footing drain detail is attached to this report as Plate 5. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where buildings, slabs, or pavements -are to be constructed. The slopes should be covered with plastic. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is paved. Groundwater was observed in our test pits and, if encoun- tered in the excavation, the water should be drained away from the site by use of drainage ditches, perforated pipe or French drains, or by pumping from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation. It would be advantageous to install the footing drains prior to placing the foundation forms. The water should not discharge onto the slope. EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES In no case should excavation slopes be steeper or greater than the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of four feet may be made vertical. For slopes having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1 (horizontal:vertical) from the top of the slope. It should be noted that the sands will cave suddenly and without warning. Utility contractors should be especially aware of this potential danger. All permanent cut slopes into native dense soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Fill slopes should not exceed 2:1 (horizontal:vertical). Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any slope. Also, all permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. Roth Homes. JN 88359 October 11, 1988 Page 6 SITE PREPARATION AND GENERAL EARTHWORK We recommend that the building and pavement areas be stripped and cleared of all surface vegetation, all organic matter and any other deleterious material. Stripped materials should be removed from the site or, if desired, stockpiled for later use in landscaping. The stripped materials should not be Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under buildings. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should observe site conditions prior to fill placement. ,J(810buttural fill under floor slabs should be placed in horzo,n;tal lifts and compacted to a density equal to or greater tha`n� ­9,5 percent ' of the maximum dry density in accordance with ?A184TM °Test Designation D-1557-78k. (Modified Proctor) . The fill materials should .be placed at or near the optimum moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks and behind retaining walls should also be placed in horizontal lifts and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum density except for the top twelve (12) inches which should be compacted to 95 percent of maximum density. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction equipment and the number of passes made by the equipment. 1,,n no case should the lifts pX40.`61i'd twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a granular soil having no more than 5 percent material passing the No. 200 sieve. The percentage of particles passing the 200 sieve should be measured on that portion of the soil passing the three-quarter inch sieve. LIMITATIONS Geological factors such as stratigraphic discontinuities that occur between test pits and soil exposures, or variations in groundwater conditions are not predictable with a limited exploration program or conventional engineering analysis. Such non -quantifiable risks must be borne by the owners. This report has been prepared for specific application to this project and for the exclusive use of Roth Homes and their representatives. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, selective laboratory testing and Roth Homes JN 88359 October 11, 1988 Page 7 engineering analyses. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommen- dations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. We recommend that this report, in its entirety, be included in the project contract documents for the information of the contractor. ADDITIONAL SERVICES It is recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. provide a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the final design and specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications. It is also recommended that Geotech Consultants, Inc. be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the intent of contract plans and specifications, and to provide recommendations for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We recommend that a representative of our firm be present during placement of structural' fill to observe the process and to conduct density tests in the fill. The following plates are attached and complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan Plate 3 Test Pit Logs Roth Homes October 11, 1988 Plate 4 Plate 5 �.•'�s R. F� -16% i • �'•.C�STEPEV r' �Q• �� 4J�04AI E.411 Attachments DBG/JRF:c Vb JN 88359 Page 8 Grain Size Analysis Footing Drain Detail Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Z. Dennis B. Green Geotechnical Engineer T ,i ames R. nley, Jr. P.E. Principal .rlxt23E) i�►i 7tjy�,`'° �;'F ' ✓f, � 4y Yin4'.5 �., t`'vri5. �+a.. r��R ai �� Ftl �rrP �I". f `t�R� 7„1 f, r•'."� `�•Ki f+ k � I 4 +rue `� dlrr� "F•'fi+'� � 2 +•'+.•.9 �d e'�^.7'P,:J �! � kit. � } k- r: Taa x+x a a 1 pr c }r �'�'•�k ���:. (•'� H '�Z� �4 Y�. .i tif'�" �•+r: a-1 ��* GS t`y ,}�� il{ +, P � � if 3 G'i f�^ �yy� J�ia�i•f. G D S F.E. 1 eg.e2r 'i' iM^.�i'.ild.'.T:t '^r•4- r•• znz TP-1 0 LEGEND TP-2 APPROXIMATE TEST PIT LOCATIONS 0 N 1 TEST PIT LOCATION PLAN SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON job No., po/�: Sco/er P/oler 88359 OCT. 198 1= 20� 2 �� X4. 0 5 27.6 E 15 Is V W 0 22.4 TEST PIT I USCS Description Elevation :1SM Brown SILTY SAND with some organics,. fine grained, moist, loose, (Topsoil -Fill) SM:: Gray SILTY SAND, medium grained, wet, medium dense becomes blue -gray blue -gray SILT, moist,.stiff ML 8M T Gray SILTY SAND with silt alayers, fine to medium grained, ML medium dense to dense Test Pit terminated at 11 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 412 feet during excavation. USCS TEST PIT 2 Description Elevation . ffft,4ray SILTY SAND medium rained moist loos .w rown SILTY SAND with organics, moist loose yV. - Brown PEAT with sand layers, wet, soft Gray SILTY SAND, medium grained, wet, medium dense 5 SM: becomes tan becomes gray and saturated occasional SILT layers IO 85.3 :•.GP•. Brown SANDY GRAVEL, saturated, dense SM Gray SAND, fine to medium grained, saturated, medium dense to dense Test Pit terminated at 122 feet below existing grade. Groundwater seepage encountered at 912 feet during 15 excavation. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TEST PIT LOGS MARSH RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON .lob No. Dole: Lopped By, Pole 88359 OCT. 1988 DBG 3 WMIMIEMEM MEMINMENE MINMINMENE M■ 540pe bockfill away from foundation BACKFILL See text for requirements. WASHED ROCK NONWOVEN GEOTE FILTER FABRIC GEOTECH CONSULTANTS TIGHTLINE ROOF DRAIN Do not connect ffi footing drain. SLAB /--I 4 min. T AO"'RERFORATED HARD PVC PIPE ,'�IJ446'&Qeast as low as -footlhg _a/7?d r wwatZi."Itacer ii0m Ippe to drob?. Place FOOTING DRAIN -DETAIL MARSH RESIDENCE EDMONDS, WASHINGTON Job No.'sca". Date: . 88359 JOCT. 1988 N.T. S5 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS 13240 N.E. 201h St. (Northup Way), Suite 12 Bellevue, WA 98005 (206) 747.5618 (206) 343.7959 March 28, 1989 JN 88359 Roth Development & Construction Co., Inc. 17901 Bothell Way Southeast, Suite 105 Bothell, Washington 98012 Attention: Gary Roth Subject: Residential Construction Project Parcel 31 Tract 122, Meadowdale Beach Edmonds, Washington Gentleine6: ` As requested, we observed site conditions following project excavation for a proposed two-story, single family residence over a daylight basement having a framed floor and a crawl space . Heavy groundwater f low was encountered during the excavation. The excavation exceeds the originally planned depth by more than five feet. The purpose of our visit was to provide a professional opinion regarding control of the groundwater to enable the project to continue. As the recommendations are professional opinions, no warranty, expressed or implied, is made. To provide drainage for the heavy flow of groundwater while at the same time allowing the project to continue, we recommend that a drainage blanket of washed pea gravel be constructed over the entire excavation. The floor of the excavation must first be graded so that the water will flow to the discharge point within the crawl space. The drainage blanket should consist of a non -woven geotextile filter fabric placed on the floor of the excavation and covered with at least one foot of pea gravel. it is important that the pea gravel be contained within the excavation and not allowed to "flow" nor should later excavation beneath footings (for utilities, etc.) be contemplated. In addition the filter cloth and the pea gravel should be placed as high up 'on the excavation face as possible to prevent undermining of the cut slopes by the emerging groundwater. r A Roth Development & Construction JN 88359 March 28, 1989 Page Two Footings may be placed directly on the pea gravel; nc compactive effort is required. It may be necessary after completion of the foundation, to infill the crawl space with additional pea gravel and to provide a well constructed vapor barrier. We can provide additional information on vapor barriers and their construction as needed. Filter cloth should be use to cover the pea gravel before walls are backfilled with the on -site sand. Collected surface and/or roof water must be kept separate from the foundation drainage system (including the drainage blanket) . We should be notified when the drainage blanket is to be constructed so that we may be present to provide additional recommendations as necessary. If you have any questions regarding our recommendations or if we can be of further service, please contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. '1/1`7 Dennis B. Green Geological Engineer DBG/cw b(IST 06- PpMp-j oN we" -metes �6r It1e1t� X = Moms--) oEW MNCF-, 013 Ok tmsw �L' 1Dlo# + llnw Wa6g — — — _ T"Fl "( waE RaR°S3 o OIL )P4YF hY Nvwp,y ALL WORK SUBJECT TO FIELD . INSPECTION FOR CODE COMPLIANCE 'I N 'ENGINEEIIDIVISI V MOTEODN! Date:i i OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE q0 701 WTtm .1wtohRY OM Rd)sp- C7w 7f* 4w 1 4RPRO`,'l BY PLAN�JIN11 Azk—pJk City of Edmonds Building Division APPR" OVED PLAN STREET FILE 70 2�� 7q -i 1 /1 0 � 1 � n .. r •�� � � 1 .. e \ �,.� � _ �. In I . .. _ . \,^. . ., ..•. .. I � .B°UN-1IFw RECEIVED FEB 2 2 2015 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER S- II('�a•,cy ` ms SAi Ae stip.4--z-wo G PVL /9S I U , G S EX Z7 b .TO DPA/N 4 � •- -- �=� o ray - — - - - -- - - _ _ _ --- I f - � � _ /7_�:OD 7• G °°0e°r,POCK c,� �YG S/DE SEWS E rST. I ' I ip I 1 / /E. /72.39 �S!/.v1P _ S N. SEwG'1e M.H• S/T IC /79.71 I � P. P. I I j I I o ,vEyc! I I I I 1 I Q rYPE I / �, g s l I I LIO T I I <7SPHAL Ir I I I I r I a L 0/ —` RE5/D4-NCE I I v Q 1 Z1; I N 87 e o oc 1 N �kA i �" W Q � \ rr @� , / � .•e\ �4h� � " /POOP D A/N (TYP.�/ l/.VED �.e,4/NA�E �. IIz lMro t V cc► .rF r. / / `v / /3 L T, R I 1,ti I I I TDP /7/.00, 57.q.0t20 N"cw / /La I / - �f � '• -,l l- 5 /DEN E / � uJ vC {JYR- 2_PL.9CE5i ACLES RD. IN ��_ S,, c� I, --- rra:o' �X E,�rO D/" 9CCE55 .PD. �� ��Q� hI \ EMOVE/MCP T I �llla— '�U : 1 �{'� • 11111=I11=111� v 1 2 =_. USX nn/ PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE NUMBER $ o3 ,CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB-f �] I ADDRESS f 14�L1 0, if OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS I �J T- y� / /1 A 1 A )/ /n LEGAL DESCRIPTION CHECK SUB IVISION NO, LID NO. /�� w MAILING ADDRESS f'CrV 1 IV C�iC/ ' ) Zn f � /_/ ` i� O i I'V • !V `j [o TESCP i PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP. APPROVED BY CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER EXISTING __.._._.__ REQUIRED DEDICATION _ ..........._.. PROPOSED NAME GO RIGHT OF WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT REQUIRED. STREET USE PERMIT REQUIRED 1 w ADDRESS r REVIEW BY SEE ENGINEERING MEMO DATED a CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER h/ �r II! REMARKS II NAME ADDRESS Fj/u%1L �Iv7INL `./`Wa/ �✓J C/'c�V /"� N7r� O �/�ti,"/�/ K i METER-SIZ BUILDING SUPPLY SIZE FIXTURE UNITS U CITY .3J l a TELEPHONE NUMBER 2 11 � (� z REM � y t�f li O I; O STATE LICENSE NUMBER SIGN AREA ENV. REVIEW ADB NO. !� ALLOWED I PROPOSED COMPLETE I EXEMPT I Legal Description of Property - include all eas ments p I; (show below or attach two copses) SHORELINE VARIANCE OR CU IPLANN NG REVIEW BY DATE S Z.17-� SETBACKS - FEET HEI6144 LOT COVERAGE FRONT �/ SIDE[7 1 r y E REAR REMARKS 2rNEW ® RESIDENTIAL ADDIALTER El COMMERCIAL REPAIR APT. BLDG. EXCAVATE DEMOLISH OR FILL CARPORT REMODEL GARAGE Li 0 El ❑ PLUMBING MECHANICAL SIGN FENCE ( X—FT) POOL CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION r / V CODE ±11A I HEIGHT J SPECIAL REQUIRED INSPECTOR JAHEA OCCUPANCY GROUP � � OCCUPANT LOAD aWOOD STOVE INSERT ❑ RETAINING WALL/ ROCKERY RENEWAL Cl YES : NO REMARKS PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 PL-A IJ 6,I'+ ebI - #• 33 �J �j�/ / �E/� t NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF --- WFI_LING-.- " ITS NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) /T/E�///IL . �G/(f6 W 17,CR ' / `-Ca - _- VALUATION FEE I= a 3 z z z J a PLAN CHECK FEE 7 Gi BUILDING \ PLUMBING \ 1 ff 1 MECHANICAL - `it covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINGIFILL \ruction on the public domain (curls, sidewalks, (marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Pe Ion: 180 Days Per, `par • Provided Work is Started Within 180 Days ENERGY CODE S \behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and sucr `rest, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold rn of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, I nts from any and all claims for damages of ing directly or indirectly from the issuance ce of this permit shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT , e any requirement of any city ordinance City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE APPLICATION APPROVAL t I have read this application;. that the ATTENTION and that I am the owner, or the duly r. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT �1m On; and in doing the work authoriz• AUTHORIZES wl`' ployed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE unp to Workmen's Compensa WORK NOTED INSPECTION •s DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT > CITY OF CD EDMONDS 77 y1-32 Z - \ This application is not a' permit until signed by the Building Official or his Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFICIAL•S� GNA 11RE• DATE - j`� j REL ASED BY: I A 7 6W101wG OR STRUCTURE w W,AN 1.1NrROAL OR - «µ9 fif Eae � LOPFILE � ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor :. ......... _... . 4. r - N _ - - -- - 7a T " . N i / Zvi 77 --- _—_ - .�';;�k �r, is ;;_�4r'• ( 6 'fYYJJ �' �'�[7i� � V. I� tc— I L' {/' ��1 N N� .°F•r'-d�:.. � lf• @`'-! x-i-�- ?- 4 > <� '�ii" :°��i °y .. _ c, ,�, -�. � .. .. .• ... l c I t �iyc�v Fit NT dr N.E • ; Ior r4. I poi t4T t2w,00 III N E B G PEM ERMIT COUNTER FLU I �ep� fi 2d 75� C = z3�t . 1 D= Z4k9 9.1 t , .7:5 y ± Z-i y, q'-i 2y� • `i`4 r Z— z0f, 9y mac. q22 {Gl.I I GK� or M E�t�W D I.� � �GN m- I T Zn N , jz4 P-, H, M-, �p►✓1�Nt��, V �i-1lt\k "r�ll ar, Fes"( iO u SCALE: } °= 2® C� 1 m,} COrOURIMT. I 2 FEE-r DATUM ' CITY OF EDMONDS / AF-RtPi4 TOPO, / Ds� IN r FNo yE"Ra Coif. / c.SAW 4891 t7ev. L s /. /r C N 0 'o N f,r n•�1 F E B c.�.� • - PERMIT COUNTER sukvEy FOR ROTH � O.EVELOPME N T CO. I� III N SCALE: al rn 4 N a i -u+ > t = zo m nl G.FF� ?39.00. ► ►M,O. U 5,I,F► ►► ►►►�� i I m m l Conri'ouR Znrr. tA FEE-- O nAl UP (OD O to Alt N N X4 cY ni N N N„tv N N N rFND Pe" RB COR. L.SA* 489 i — DAT UPA o - / I CiTy OF EOMONOS NAER(AL TOPO. y e FND t Ra COR. L.SAW 9891 47ev. Z S /. 496 N:�; i I ► I �ll I I f l 11 /o 2z02 r;,:N ,O Ys R0 COR ' J 'RA�. ) I I , l,SA 989 PORTION OF TRACT #122PU-7 OF L�u(Q(�. 00% rm 31M M WYti F-10