17115 69TH PL W.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII
5310
17115 69TH PL W
ADDRESS: PL W
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 0101,3_500000300
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): ZO D �s — 0!y'j
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:, DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver (4Stu'dyVIV�i—ed Ej Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 0 10 1 a;f-
PARVW(-� A('.PPPX41PWTq T)ATIPT)-
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: L01 A
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILEP-b2 - pq!> AD - LZ - 0A0 LOT: BLOCK:
I
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S)
GEOTECH REPORT DATED: I I 10105
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DA
LATEMP\DS']7s\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
ORE C E J,.V E D,
CAFileNo: EX'4?)
16 2001 Critical Areas Checklist
,e 1nfBfM1iM#V&/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation)
A. Site Address/ Location: 688p i:j9nd 'zW- Vdmonds. wash
2. Property Tax Account Number oo5j3jo0()j26o-j
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 6 acres
4. Is this site currently develop 'j? — yes; _,y no.
If yes; how *is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: no ; Approx. Depth:
Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: no Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
no
8. Site is in the floodway ---no— floodplain __no__ of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
-no —Flows are seasonal? no (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested — yes meadow shrubs- n-dxed
urban landscaped Oawnshrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: . no
In
G:�ShareTibrwy\Planning\Forms\Public Handouts\ Critical Areas Checklist Doc/1-16-2001
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Merle Steinman Sr. & Determination #: CA-0143
Associates
Project Name: Permit Number:
Site Location: 1 6880172 " d Street SW J Property Tax Acct #: 1 5131000 126 01 1
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
Duning review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that. the site appears to contain
critical areas, including a Steep Slope Hazard Area, and a Wildlife Habitat Area pursuant to
Chapter 20.1513 of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC).
Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required
satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing a Critical Areas Study consisting of the
following:
Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements:
To detennine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a
Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of
40% or more with at least 20 feet of rise will. be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-
foot buffer is required from both the top and 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:
1. 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.
2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is
not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.1513, a Reasonable Use Exception
and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B. I 70A and 20.15B.040C.
Wildlife Habitat Area Requirements:
Research of the site determined that the entire parcel lies with a City of Edmonds designated
Wildlife Habitat Area. The applicant must contact the Washington State Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife to determine if there. is a habitat conservation or wildlife management plan for the
property. Please contact Tony Oppermann with the Washington State Department of Fisheries
and Wildlife at the following address:
16018 Millcreek Blvd.
Millcreek, WA 98012
(206) 227-4682 -
The Land Surveyor shall enter into a three party contract with the applicant and the City of
Edmonds as required in ECDC 20.15B.140(D), where the applicant pays for the study. The
applicant may suggest qualified professionals for the City's approval.
If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the
applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC
20.15B. I 70A and 20.15B.040C.
If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel
would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may submit their proposal to
the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department finds that the proposed
development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or itsbuffers, a conditional
waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Please call me at 771-0220 if you have
any questions.
Name
Signattire
March 26. 2001
Date
Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds
website at www.cLedmonds.wa.us.
2
A-01� 0 2, M IM-H
+V14e, ckbi8v'
I-Di-6 L�-2; 61�101A Id �>c 01CV-00pit4
PLANNING DATA
coribi'6fe-vi�-Ij wijsl
NAME: P-H. 1+00V-0-ff 4 Ivir- DATE: Q(P-15-7-006'
SITEADDRESS: 1-+ 16 -toAl-H Pl. W — 10 +- * --f- PLAN CHK#: 06 - I C1 5
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: RtW 6EJ!! * Q a r a Q r-, 3�r2 4 V r)%A� (p (P2,
main 101,00, V12112el� J!t2--1 W, ni-by-LAA `1 QQ'7 d6r-h= 1 (0091'
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: (Yes No)
MAP PAGE: 45+ CORNER LOT: (yes FLAG LOT: ff2s
ZONING: PLS-2-0 * CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: Ot - 04->
M Study Required: " 5hA d r m p leic," pf& F, F-D straff reDDvq- ( n c) si cye- 5
LJ Waiver -�vtAnd ori Site)
LJ Conditional Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION: CjQM91 ct L.4 yo -fD eg r5fj'Y).9 M P NJ -5
Ll Fee P P-D - 0 -'1' - Lt C'0 M 0 15
Ll Checklist
re,q LA LJ APO list wl notarized form
0 (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
Ll Exempt t% (0057 (,LAOCC yarCJS CLAt / (POS cubir, Ycird�, -Nil 0-�s .3
PP-P E'taff SETBACKS: k0000knrce4 or) si+t."
Rggl1iread Setbacks: M
(W) Street:_Jefj�Left Side:— 10 Right Side: Rear
Actual Setbacks: -bo�
I ol Street: Left Side: Right Side: Rear: '15 01
Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No jfKA))
DETACHED STRUCTURES: NOYle, 6VIOWn M Si+0 PIOL h.
ROCKERIES: ((.LA-� 6109-C, /Ovf5inai
FENCEsrTRELLISES: None, SV10WV1 On si-Fr, Pico.
Ll BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: M-ttt a Gk-
IN STAIRS / DECKS: M t tit-'S' -5 4C41001.
PARKING: Required: 2' Actual: PYOP06"C' 2-081 4l
LOT AREA: 10 co V-c/m d en I C) 15 t# 104-
LOT COVE CA ?-C.+- = 1 C5 (P co Vr'Y-C4 3e,
Calculations: 1'2'-9-/-
BUILDING HEIGHT: 4: 1+0(0-0
Datum Point: 9-19 Di bep 1A 1+ Datum Elevation:
MaximumAllowed: 7-51 +21(0-67� ActualHeight: 4D9.4
A.D.U. CREATED?:& Yes) 0 V'itLad-oy" -5howyk,
------------
SUBDIVISION: Madowd0le, PF-0 2,001,-041D P-07,-q5 1 (0 No. 10
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: (YesA@ 4
OTHER: 191-3 af 67R&& 1 ?2,nd _&5--�,s K/ L�01 63,
AV CY'A 5 e-
r (A & e,
Plan Review By: 12
. Afoi�eiin-e ioiown a6 +7-2.-gol
NewBPPIann ingDataFomi. DOC
"Co-irnerstont
Geotech *" 'I Inc.
nica.1,
January 6, 2005
Ms. Cathy Patterson
Hoover Premier Homes
16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #108
Mill Creek, WA 98012
17625-130th Ave. P, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: 425-844-1977
Fax: 425-844-1987
RECEIVED
I
MAY 17 2905
L.LM PERMIT COUNTER
STREET F11 ro
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1791
Dear Ms. Patterson:
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation for your Meadowdale
Estates residential development in the Meadowdale area of Edmonds, Washington. The site is located at
6880-172 nd Street SW, as shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1.
Site development, including grading, road construction, and utility placement, has been substantially
completed. We understand that you have purchased all of the building lots, with the exception of Lot 2,
for the purposes of constructing single-family residences. The City of Edmonds has required a
. geotechnical report for the lots with slopes greater than 15 percent, and you have requested that we
evaluate the subsurface conditions of your lots and provide foundation recommendations for the proposed
residences. For our use in preparing this report, we have been provided with a copy of a site plan by CHS
Engineering, dated September 2003, that shows lot, road, and utility layout. We have also been provided
with a Slope Stability Evaluation, prepared by GeoEngineers and dated June 18, 2002, that addresses the
detention facility. Additionally, we have been provided with field reports prepared by Sky Valley Testing
that document compaction testing performed during the main earthwork phase of the project.
PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The L-shaped project site has maximum dimensions of approximately 640 feet north to south and 440 feet
east to west. The development consists of a total of 12 lots. We understand that you intend to construct
Geotechnical Engineering Rep
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 2
single-family residences on all of the lots with the exception of Lot 2, which you do notown. The
provided grading plan indicates cuts totaling 6,000 cubic yards (CY) and fills totaling'12,000 CY. The
grading plan also indicates that fills may be at least 12 feet deep in some areas. At this point in time, site
grading has been completed and utilities have been installed. A completed storm water detention vault is
located close to the western site boundary.
SCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the subsurface conditions and present
recommendations, for site development. Specifically, our scope of services as outlined in our Services
Agreement, dated December 23, 2004, includes the following:
I . Review available geologic maps of the area and available project documentation.
2. Explore the subsurface conditions at the site with backhoe-excavated test pits.
3. Provide recommendations for building foundations, including lateral pressures for
retaining walls.
4. Provide recommendations for site preparation and grading.
5. Provide general recommendations for site drainage.
6.: Prepare a written report to document our conclusions and recommendations.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
At the time of our exploration, the access road (69'h Place W) was paved. Site grading was also complete
and grass was growing on all. of the lots. The storm water detention vault and utilities had all been
completed, but no residences had been constructed yet. A layout of the site is shown on the Site Plan in
Figure 2. 1
Generally, the ground surface slopes downward towards the west at approximately 3 Horizontal to I
Vertical (3H: IV). An existing residence borders the southwestern comer of the site and 172 "d Street SW
borders the site to the south. The rest of the site is surrounded by a wooded area with brush and evergreen
trees up to approximately 2 feet in diameter.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Repirt
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 3
Geology
Most of the Puget Sound Region was affected by past intrusion of continental glaciation. The last period
of glaciation, the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ended approximately 11,000 years ago. Many of
the geomorphic features seen today are a result of scouring and overriding by glacial ice. During the
Vashon Stade, much of the Puget Sound region was overridden by over 3,000 feet of ice. Soil layers
overridden by the ice sheet were compacted to a much greater extent than those that were not. Part of a
typical glacial sequence includes recessional outwash sand underlain by glacial till.
The site is mapped as being underlain. by glacial till (Preliminar� Surficial Geologic MgD of the Edmonds
East and Edmonds West Quadrarigles., Snohomish and King Counties Mackey Smith, 1975). The map
also indicates the presence of advance and recessional outwash in the general area surrounding the site.
Our site explorations encountered glacial till, recessional outwash, and fill. Glacial till, commonly
referred to as "hardpan," is an unsorted mixture of sand, silt, and gravel that is deposited at the bottom of
a continental glacier. As a result of having been consolidated under the weight of the glacier, glacial till
exhibits both high strength and low permeability. Alluvial sand and gravel deposited by glacial melt
water during glacial recession is known as recessional outwash. In contrast to glacial till, recessional
outwash has not been glacially consolidated.
Explorations
Subsurface conditions were explored at- the site on December 28, 2004, by excavating a total of five test
pits. The test pits were excavated to depths ranging between 0.5 and I 1 .0 feet below the ground surface.
The explorations were located in the field by a representative from this firm who also examined the soils
and geologic conditions encountered, and maintained logs of the test pits. The approximate locations of
the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure I' The soils were visually classified in general
accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The
logs of the test pits are presented in Figures 4 and 5.
Subsurface Conditions
A brief description of the conditions encountered in our explorations is included below. For a more
detailed description of the soils encountered, review the test pit logs in Figures 4 and 5.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Rep
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 4
Our explorations encountered glacial till, recessional outwash, and fill. Test Pits 3, 4 and 5 were
excavated in cut areas and all encountered very dense till within one foot of the surface. Test Pits I and 2
encountered approximately 4.0 and 5.0 feet of fill, respectively. Beneath the fill, Test Pit I encountered
recessional outwash. Test Pit 2 encountered a layer of topsoil underlying the fill. The topsoil layer was
underlain byweathered glacial till becoming glacial till. It should be noted that loose soils in the areas of
Test Pits I and 2 extend at least 4.0. and 6.0 feet below the ground surface, respectively.
Hydrologic Conditions
Shallow ground water seepage was encountered in Test Pit 2 at a depth of approximately 1.0 foot. We
consider this water to be perched, and associated with surface runoff. The on -site till, in particular, is
considered poorly draining. During the wetter times of the year, we expect perched water conditions will
occur as pockets of water on top of the till layer. Perched water does not represent a regional ground
water "table" within the upper soil horizons. Volumes of perched ground water vary depending upon the
time of year and the upslope recharge conditions.
Erosion Hazard
The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient,
vegetation cover, and ground water conditions'. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover. and
the specific surface soil types (group classification), which are related to the underlying geologic soil
units. The Soil Survey of Snohomish County Area Washington by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS)
was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The site surface soils were classified
using the SCS classification system as Unit 5 (Alderwood — Urban Land Complex). The corresponding.
geologic unit for these soils is fill, which is generally in agreement with the soils encounter ed in our site
explorations. The erosion hazard for the soil is listed as being slight for slopes less than 8 percent. The
moderately -sloping portions of the site may encounter higher levels of erosion, but not to such a degree
that the site would be classified an'erosion hazard. Best management practices (BM[Ps) and applicable
codes should be followed during site grading to limit potential for erosion. We do not expect this site will
require unusual or extreme erosion management methods. There are no water bodies adjacent to the site.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. -
Geotechnical Engineering Relt
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 200�
CG File No. 1791
Page 5
Seismic Hazard
The site is classified based on its overall soil profile using Table 1615.1.1 of the 2003 International
Building Code (IBC). Site conditions best fit the IBC definition for Site Class C ("Very dense soil and
soft rock"). The MC provides parameters and coefficients to be.used in seismic design based upon this
site class.
Additional seismic considerations include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground motions by
soft soil deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand with a high ground water table. The
underlying dense. till is considered to have a very low potential for liquefaction and amplification -of
ground motion.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion that the site is compatible with the planned development. The underlying medium dense
to very dense glacial till deposits are capable of supporting the planned structures and pavements. We
recommend that the foundations for the structures extend through any topsoil, fill, loose, or disturbed
soils, and bear on the underlying medium dense to very dense, native glacial till, or on structural fill
extending to these soils. Based on our explorations, we anticipate these soils will generally be
encountered at typical footing depths in the cut areas of the site. Fill encountered in Test Pits I and 2 was
loose. As a result, areas of fill may need to be over -excavated and properly compacted. Alternatively,
foundations could be constructed to extend through the loose soils.
The soils likely to be exposed during construction are highly moisture sensitive and will disturb easily
when wet or during wet conditions. We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer
months, if possible. If construction takes place during the wet season, additional expenses and delays
should be expected due to the wet conditions.
Site Preparations and Grading
The first step of site preparation should be to strip the vegetation, topsoil, or loose soils to expose medium
dense to very dense native soils in pavement and building areas. This material should be removed from
the site, or stockpiled for later use as landscaping fill. Ile resulting subgrade should be compacted to a
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Rept
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 6
firm, non -yielding condition. Areas observed to pump or weave should be repaired prior to placing hard
surfaces.
I .
The on -site glacial till likely to be exposed during construction is considered highly moisture sensitive,
. and the surface will disturb easily when wet. We expect these soils would be difficult, if not impossible,
to compact to structural fill specifications in wet weather. We recommend that earthwork be conducted
during the drier months. Additional expenses of wet weather or winter construction would include extra
excavation and. use of imported fill or rock spalls.
Structural Fill
General: All fill placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features should be
placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and
standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field -
monitoring procedures would include the performance of a representative number of in -place density tests
to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction.
Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality, free -draining granular soil, free of
organics and other deleterious material, and be well graded to. a maximum size of about 3 inches.
Imported, all -Weather structural fill should contain no more than 5 percent fines (soil fmer than a Standard
U.S. No. 200 sieve), based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve.
The use of on -site soil as structural fill will be dependent on moisture content control. Some drying of the
native soils may be necessary in order to achieve compaction. During warm, sunny days this could be
accomplished by spreading the material in thin lifts and compacting. Some aeration and/or addition of
moisture may also be necessary. We expect that compaction of the native soils to structural fill
specifications would be difficult, if not impossible, during wet weather.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. Fill
should be placed in 8- to 10-inch-thick uniform lifts, and each lift should be spread evenly and be
thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas,
and within a depth of 2 feet below pavement and sidewalk subgrade, should be compacted to at least 95
percent of its maximum dry density. Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 7
determined by the ASTM D 1557 compaction test procedure. Fill more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and
pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of the maximum dry density. The
moisture content of the soil to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a
readily compac table condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate and remove wet surficial soils
in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All compaction should be accomplished
by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree of compaction.
Temporar� and Permanent Slopes
Temporary cut slope stability is a function of many factors, such as the type and consistency of soils,
depth of the cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the
presence of surface or ground water. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate
a *stable temporary cut slope geometry. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to
maintain safe slope configurations, since the contractor is continuously at the job site, able to observe the
nature and condition of the cut slopes, and able to monitor the subsurface materials and ground water
conditions encountered.
We anticipate cuts for the daylight basements of your proposed residences. For planning purposes, we
recommend that temporary cuts in the near -surface weathered'soils be no greater than IH: IV. Cuts in the
fill should be no 'greater than 1.5H . :IV. Cuts in the dense to very dense fill may stand it a 0.75H: IV
inclination or possibly steeper. If ground water seepage is encountered, we would expect that flatter
inclinations would. be necessary.
We recommend that cut slopes be protected from erosion. Measures taken may include covering cut
slopes wit h plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not
recommend vertical slopes for cuts deeper than 4 feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that
cut slope heights and inclinations conform to local and WISHA/OSHA standards.
I
Final slope* inclinations for structural fill and the cuts in the native soils should be no steeper fim 2H: IV.
Lightly compacted fills or common fills should be no steeper than 3H: IV. Common fills are defined as
fill material with some organics that are "trackrolled" into place. They would not meet the compaction
specification of structural fill. Final slopes should be vegetated and covered with straw or jute netting.
The vegetation should be maintained until it is established.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Repo
'Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 8 1
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be founded on undisturbed, medium dense to very
'dense, glacial till, or be supported on structural fill extending to those soils. If -the soil at the planned
bottom of footing elevation is not medium dense to very dense, it should be overexcavated to expose
suitable bearing soil, and the excavation should be filled with structural fill, or the footing may be
overpoured with extra concrete. For residences planned to be built on sloping ground, we recommend a
minimum horizontal distance of 10 feet between the bottom of the footing and the slope face.
Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface fof.frost
protection and bearing capacity considerations. Minimum foundation.widths of 16 and 20 inches should.
be used for continuous and isolated spread footings, respectively. Standing water should not be allowed
to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation
excavation prior to placing concrete.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of
2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the footing design. International Building Code (IBC)
guidelines should be followed when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential
foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less thaii I -
inch total and V2-inch differential between footings or across a distance of about 30 feet. Higher soil
bearing values may be appropriate for footings founded on the unweathered till, and with wider footings.
These higher values can be determined after a review of a specific design.
Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade soil, and by passive soil
resistance acting on the below -grade portion of the foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be
poured "neat" against undisturbed soil or backfilled with clean, free -draining, compacted structural fill.
Passive resistance may be calculated as a triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. We
recommend that an equivalent fluid density of 225 Pounds per cubic foot (pcf) be used to calculate the
allowable lateral passive resistance for the case of a level ground surface adjacent to the footing. An
allowable coefficient of friction between footings and soil of 0.45 may be used, and should be applied to
the vertical dead load only. A factor of safety of 2.0 has been applied to the passive pressure to account
for required movements to generate these pressures. The friction coefficient does not include a factor of
safety.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Repqo
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 9
Lateral Loads
The lateral earth pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil
behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement that can occur as backfill is placed, 'and the
inclination of the backfill. Walls that are free to Yield at least one -thousandth of the height of the wall are
in an "active" condition. Walls restrained from movement by stiffiiess or bracing are in an "at -rest"
condition. Active earth pressure and at -rest earth pressure can be calculated based on equivalent -fluid
density. Equivalent fluid densities for active and at -rest earth pressure of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf)
and 55 pcf, respectively, may be used for design for a level backslope. Equivalent fluid densities for
active and at -rest earth pressure of 45 pounds per cubic foot (pc'f) and 75 pcf, respectively, may be used
for design for a 20 degree backslope. These values assume that the on -site soils are used for backfill,
and that the wall backfill is drained. The preceding values do not include the effects of surcharges due to
foundation loads, traffic or other surface loads. Surcharge effects should be considered where
appropriate.
The above lateral pressures may be resisted by ftiction at the base of the wall and passive resistance
against the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.45 may be used to determine the base friction when
supported on the above recommended foundation subgrade preparation alternatives. An equivalent fluid
f
density of 225 pcf should be used for passive resistance. The friction value does not incorporate a sa ety
factor. A safety factor of 2 is applied to the passive pressure to limit movement.
All wall backfill should be well compacted. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral
soil pressures due to overcompaction. of the wall backfill. This can be accomplished by placing wall
backfill in 8-inch loose lifts and compacting with small, hand-ope'rated compactors.
Slabs -On -Grade
Slab -on -grade areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Gradin
9
subsection. Slabs should be supported on medium dense to very dense native soils, or on structural fill
extending to these soils. Where moisture control is a concern, we recommend that slabs be underlain by 6
inches of free -draining coarse sand or pea gravel for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barrier,
such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Repo
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 10
Drainage
We recommend that runoff from impervious surfaces, such as roofs, driveway and access roadways, be
collected and routed to an appropriate storm water discharge system. Final site grades should allow for
drainage away from any buildings. We suggest that the finished ground surface be sloped at a gradient of
3 percent minirnum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the buildings. Surface water should be
collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system.
We recommend that footing drains be used around -all of the structures where moisture control is
important. The underlying till will pond water that accumulates in the crawl space. It is good practice to
use footing drains installed at least I foot below the planned finished floor slab or crawl space elevation to
provide drainage for the crawl space. At a minimum, the crawl space should be sloped to drain to an
outlet tied to the drainage system. If drains are omitted around slab -on -grade floors where moisture
control is important, the slab should bp a minimum of I foot above surrounding grades.
Where used, footing drains should consist of 4-inch-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is surrounded by
free -draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an
appropriate collection and discharge point. Crawl spaces should be sloped to drain, and a positive
connection should be made into the foundation drainage system. For slabs -on -grade, a drainage path
should be provided from the capillary break material to the footing drain system. Roof drains should not
be connected to wall or footing drains.
MONITORING
We should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to confirm that
the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the explorations, and to provide
recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed during the work differ from those
anticipated.
USE OF THIS REPORT
We have prepared this report for Hoover Premier Homes and their agents, for use in plammig and design
of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Rept
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page I I
estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty
of subsurface conditions.
The scope of our work does not include. services related to construction safety precautions, and our
recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors' methods, techniques, sequences or
procedures, except as specifically described in our report, for consideration in design. There are possible
variations in subsurface conditions. We recommend that project planning include contingencies in budget
and schedule, should areas be found with conditions that vary from those described in this report.
Within thelimitations of scope, schedule and budget f6r our work, we have strived to take care that our
work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time
this repoit was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood.
000
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 12
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or
if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Jeff Laub, LG
Project Geologist
1EXPIRn 081161,914
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal
PAO:JPL:RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted
Five Figures
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
CL
cu
OAM
LL
0
to 1�- C14 m l4t LO
U)
(D
LU
Q
cri
0 LL
ca
a)
>
0
0
.0
E
z
0
M
r— r—
r-- co
a) C"
-tr C)
Ln LO
" cq
<
o LL
8
CV
C5
uj
C.0 >
0 E F3
-C=
0 L6
C14
C(D
-- --------
Site Plan
------- - --- --
- ---------
----------
N-
Z,
-------------
v—, .... .. 'y
. . . . ........ -- -----
7
-----------
..... ... ..
...........
_2
f
7
"'T
e, X 'H S�
�11'1
lk" 14
.... ......
'A
V
If I
w. h":
V
Reference: Site Plan based on scanned site plan by CHS Engineering, dated 09/2003.
A
f I V�iw I I V1 I
LEGEND.
Cornerstone Phone:,(425) 844-1977
Fax: (425) 844-1987
Geotechnical, Inc.
. 17625-130*th Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA - 98072
TP- 1
Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
0 100 200
..........
Scale 1" = 100'
RH Hoover - Meadowdale Estates
File Number 1791 1 Figure 2
Albk
Unified Soil Classification System
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
GROUPNAME
SYMBOL
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE-
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
SOILS
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORETHAN150%
RETAINED ON
number 200 SIEVE
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SID
POORLY -GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50% OF
SAND
COARSE FRACTION
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
WTH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
Sc
CLAYEY SAND
SILTAND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
FINE -
CL
CLAY
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50%
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
MORE THAN 50%
PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY
LIQUID LIMIT
50% OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS
1) Field classification is based on Dry -Absence of moisture, dusty, dry
visual examination of soil in general to the touch
accordance with ASTM D 2488-83.
2) Soil classification using laboratory Moist- Damp, but no visible water
tests is based on ASTMI D 2487-83. Wet- Visible free water or saturated,
3) Descriptions of soil density or usually soil is obtained from
consistency are based on below water table
interpretation of blowcount data,
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
Cornerstone Phone: (425) 84-1977
Unified Soil Classification System
Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987
17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 -Woodinville, WAO 98072
Figure 3
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH
Usc
SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT ONE
0.0-3.0
sm
GRAY -BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL)
3.0-4.0
sm
DARK GRAY SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH TRACE GRAVEL AND ORGANICS
(LOOSE, WET) (FILL)
4.0-10.0
SM
GRAY SILTY MEDIUM TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE,
WET) (RECESSIONAL OUTWASH/FILL?)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.5, 8.0 AND 10.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 4.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 10.0 FEET ON 12/28/04
TEST PIT TWO
0.0-1.0
sm
DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) (TOPSOILIDUFF)
1.0-5.0
SM
GRAY -BROWN SILTY FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) (FILL)
5.0-6.0
SM
DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ORGANICS (LOOSE, WET)
(TOPSOIL)
6.0-10.0
SM
RED -BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL AND ROOTS (LOOSE TO
MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED TILL)
10.0-11.0
sm
BROWN -GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 3.0,5.0,9.0 AND 11.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS ENCOUNTERED AT APPROXIMATELY 1.0 FEET
SLIGHT TEST PIT CAVING WAS ENCOUNTERED BETWEEN 0.0 AND 6.0 FEET
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 11.0 FEET ON 12/28/04
TEST PIT THREE
0.0-1.0
SM
BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL)
1.0-4.0
sm
GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 4.0 FEET
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 12/28/04
TEST PIT FOUR
0.0 __m 0.5 sm GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
NO SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 0.5 FEET ON 12128104
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FILE NO 1791
FIGURE 4
LOG OF EXPLORATION
DEPTH Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION
TEST PIT FIVE
0.0-1.0 sm BROWN SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL)
1.0-1.5 SM GRAY SILTY FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH GRAVEL (VERY DENSE, MOIST) (TILL)
NO SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED
GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 1.5 FEET ON 12/28/04
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FILE NO 1791
FIGURE 5
May, 31
2005 10:09AM Hoover Prem , er Homes
corner—Kone.
Geotechnical, Inc.
May 24, 2005
Ms. Cathy Patterson
Hoover Premier Homes
16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #108
Mill Creek, WA 98012
No. 0550 P. 2
0
17625-1300 Ave. NE, C1 02, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: 425-844-1977
Fax: 425-844-1987
RECEIVED
MAY 3 12005
PERMIT COUNTER
Rockery Design Review Letter
Meadowdale Estates - Lot 7
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1791
Dear Ms. Patterson:
This letter presents our review of the proposed rockery design located on Lot 7 at the
Meadowdale Estates development at 6880 — 172nd Street SW, in Edmonds, Washington. We have
previously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the site, dated January 6, 2005. For
our use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with a copy of the Lot 7 site plan that
shows the locations and elevations of the proposed rockeries, and the City of Edmond's handout
#B63 regarding rockeries. This handout includes the City of Edmond's detail sheets for single
and tiered rockeries.
Lot 7 is located along the east side of the Meadowdale Estates plat- The lot generally slopes up
from the roadway to the east property line. Based on our previous explorations, we expect that
the material coning Us slope is dense glacial till.
The provided site plan shows several low rockeries surrounding the planned residence ranging up
to 4 feet in height. We have reviewed the provided Rockery Detail and Tiered Rockeries Detail,
dated April 1, 2003 and October 6, 2003, respectively, and prepared by the City of Edmonds.
Based on this review of the Edmonds details, the provided plans, and our previous explorations,
we expect that the detail in the city of Edmonds should be a suitable design for the plarmed
rockery system at Lot 7.
May. 3 1. 2005 10:09AM H o* r P r e m 1 e r H o m e s No. 0550 P. 3
Rockery Review Letter
Meadowdale Estates — Lot 7
May 24, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 2
We should be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during construction to
confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by our surficial
observatious, and to provide recommendations for design changes, should the conditions revealed
during the work differ from those anticipated. As part of our services, we would also evaluate
whether or not earthwork activities comply with contract plans and specifications. *
Within the limimtions of scope, schedule and budget for our work, we have strived to take care
that our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in
this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should
be understood.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this
report or if we can provide additional services, please call. I
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Jeff Laub, LG
Project Geologist
Rick- B. Powell, PE
President
JPL:RBP:nt
Three Copies Submitted
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
loc. 18 W3
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwdedmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
December 11, 2007
Mr. Dale R. Terwedo
President
Meadowdale Estates Homeowners Association
17115 69h Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
RIE: Meadowdale Estates Stormwater Vault
Dear Mr. Terwedo:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
During the heavy rains on December 3, 2007, the City discovered a leak in the underside of the
Meadowdale Estates stormwater vault, at the northwest comer, on the downhill side. The leak
was flowing at a significant rate and caused some washout under the footing in the northwest
comer of the vault, as well as erosion and sediment onto private properties in the neighboring
subdivision.
When the City became aware of this leak, we contacted Mr. Steinman, the developer of
Meadowdale Estates, by phone on the afternoon of December 3, 2007 to inform him of the leak
and the need for repair. I also left a phone message informing you of the situation that afternoon.
Mr. Steinman agreed that the leak needed to be re paired and that the area required cleaned up. He
arranged for the leak to be repaired with a concrete patch material on December 4, 2007 (please
see the enclosed photo) and for the erosion debris caused by the leak to be cleaned up.
The purpose of this letter is to make sure you understand that the stormwater vault and drainage
system within your subdivision are privately owned by the property owners of Meadowdale
Estates, and that, as such, the property owners are responsible to monitor and maintain the
stormwater vault/system. In addition, the Meadowdale Estates property owners could be liable
for damages caused to neighboring properties and/or City right-of-way should a leak and
associated erosion occur again.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that you obtain the services of a licensed structural engineer
to examine the vault to determine if the recent repairs are adequate to keep it in proper and safe
condition.
DAVID K. GEBERT, PE
City Engineer
CC: Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
I- ! - - fl. � T T -I - I
`31
"Jam
4- ��,-4—
T" i
iw,
4C
OFF
IJ
�N
CN 7
4E
ot
je
I,? C. 18 ()"1
STIPEET FILE
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: wwwxi.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
December 11, 2007
Mr. Dale R. Terwedo
President
Meadowdale Estates Homeowners Association
17115 69h Place West
Edmonds, WA 98026
RE: Meadowdale Estates Stormwater Vault
Dear Mr. Terwedo:
During the heavy rains on December 3, 2007, the City discovered a leak in the underside of the
Meadowdale Estates stormwater vault, at the northwest comer, on the downhill side. The leak
was flowing at a significant rate and caused some washout under the footing in the northwest
comer of the vault, as well as erosion and sediment onto private properties in the neighboring
subdivision.
When the City became aware of this leak, we contacted Mr. Steinman, the developer of
Meadowdale Estates, by phone on the afternoon of December 3, 2007 to inform him of the leak
and the need for repair. I also left a phone message informing you of the situation that afternoon.
Mr. Steinman agreed that the leak needed to be repaired and that the area required cleaned up. He
arranged for the leak to be repaired with a concrete patch material on December 4, 2007 (please
see the enclosed photo) and for the erosion debris caused by the leak to be cleaned up.
The purpose of this letter is to make sure you understand that the stormwater vault and drainage
system within your subdivision are privately owned by the property owners of Meadowdale
Estates, and that, as such, the property owners are responsible to monitor and maintain the
stormwater vault/system. In addition, the Meadowdale Estates property ownerscould be liable
for damages caused to neighboring properties and/or City right-of-way should a leak and
associated erosion occur again.
Therefore, we strongly recommend that you obtain the services of a licensed structural engineer
to examine the vault to determine if the recent repairs are adequate to keep it in proper and safe
condition.
DAVID K. GEBERT, PE
City Engineer
CC: Noel Miller, Public Works Director
Jeannine Graf, Building Official
Incorporated August 11, 1890
rl:-,-.. 'rl- I T-1 - I
us" 4F,
".TAW
"t,
�J 07,
IX.
te-
7 3.1
I.; f
12,10 00:
.14 —C
. 11; ') C3
1E111 NO: 10045
of Edmonds
SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT EXPIRES*941
Address of Construction:
Vk qL_
Property Tax Account Parcel No. C) It) 1-1 13 -00 -7 - n
Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved b
Owner and/or Contractor: �-+�. HDn In-, _.PA c,
]1k I ?21�,S Building Permit #:!2
Contractor License ?2 Q 49—
WSingle Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: XrYes El No
Multi -Family (No. of Units *RW Construction Permit
Commercial (No. of Units Cross other "Private Property: E:1 Yes IS-Ko
Public "Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
Owner/gontractot
_�_Owner or cor ra tor' sign ure and acknowledgement statement: Date
By signing fo is ' permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
ide Sewer Specifications, and shall bmply with all City,requirements outlined therein.
7 5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 2
2 CALL DIAL -A DIG' (1-800-429�
0-ft
9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extensio_��
24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REQUESTS
NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN ,
INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED.
Job Site'Ready YES NO Date: -Initial:
Partial,lnspqcflon: Date:— Initial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Zje2�� Initial: j
,6� As -built to Street File:
1� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE 1,�
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
L;temp;bldg,forms,sspertnitjlg4/00
4!
w/ 6"-4" F
A ()F
41
I's
ci
wafa U11
GARAGE
C/O @ Grade
DR-35
5' Deep
RANTY OF ACCURACY The information shown on the
0 rn P i 16 U, f C.- U —e b."'/ f h C 0 C'm
he City of Ed;Tic-,;.L,!i
of
dulymilly Sej� Torin Oil the PC[Gon or cr.ti`�j rc,,--' -'y
Should Condurd vci regarding the into,;-j:.
the niap, inc!-- -
to, the location of
shovjV
the C� rlaynote)dstandmayorr,.,,,i-,,:
City of Edmonds nor its Cr
p L
L-� 'Jfc- i0�-AfiV-Mation given onthls ma , nor fci �-q o,—J
reprosemaucii providea based upon said map
ED,k_ I CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS - BUILTS
6 ADDRESS:
ta 17115
HOMEOWNER:
R.H. HOOVER INC.
DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
10/05/05 1 1. ABILA
1-00
L-S,001111mnwi�
CONTRACTOR:
R.H. HOOVER INC.
SCALE: PERMIT NO.
110045
NOTICE: NO WARRANTY OF ACCURACY The Information shown on the
attached map was compiled tor use by the City of Edmonds, it-, ernp!oyees
and consultants. The City of Edmonds does not w,,,rrant tho of
anything set forth on the map. Any person or enUty c:py
sh ou Id con duc� zn !;-� ragr.-f` - �i Z cn
the r,*:-Z�), !Tir " 7. t.-). 1',-, z., stub
ShClj,,, c,'_ r:., i c r r. F :I at
the 10 -yM Or
Cv-oonthimap,norforanyorpJ
represeniai,c3"i provided u:_jud upoi-, sdd map
.1 () F Ebj�,_
0
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
ADDRESS HOMEOWNER
17115 69TH PL W HOOVER PREMIER HOMES
CONTRACTOR SCALE
RH HOOVER INC. NTS
DATE DRAWN ATERLINE
10/14/05 BY 1. ABILA NO, 2005-0595
I im
lk 144:
*,� 14.
Aw
�f, W,
IT
Or
0-4.4",
10/211/2t�05.
NP
10/7/2005
j W-1
RA
17
r- 7.,
-TOR12005.
PERINTERN
AT: 1711
Occupancy established by this certificate:
DE ARTMENT OF BUMMISIGS
T P'- S -
'16NAL RE IDENTIAL CdDE SECTION R110
----�,,�P�uilding it M 2005-0595
Dwellipg U
No. Stories: 3 Basernerit: N/A Type of Constirtiction: VB
Owner of bul Iding: Vi.
The Single Family Residence at —T71 �1"
2003 edition of the International Residential Code as
the proposed occupancy is classified.
rdd and approved complying with the requirements of the
and division of occupancy and the use for which
Issued this — 29th I day of November , 2006
Chief Building Official
By:
Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
L
'YQ FXY,18E TAx
REQ BREED
FEB 17 2N5
MM -Development, LL( 2005021 454 9 PGs
70
J :`
....473.1- — 12th Avenue KE 02-17-2005 03:19pm $27.00 868 Okra, simmso UNAly bmw
.§eatUe,1WA 98105 SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTON
TlNi
has placed this document of
eg-ji'tfiije o
16cord aS4*`cMbmer courtesy. and accepts no
or validity of the document
1*LAJqATlOM OF EASEMENT FOR DRPiEWAYS
Grantor M.&4,R lQevelopment LLC, a Washington corporation
Grantee R
jnent,. LLC, a Washington corporation
Legal Descnpbon�t6ts---8.. 15"'71 8, 9, 10, * 11 and 12 of Steinman's Meadowdale
, : .. plat recorded under Recording Number
Eitgfes',' 'J�it '
2004-1000349,--fecords of Snohomish County, Washington (the
KLot
Assessoes Tax Parcel ID#r '----`a1D173*0005 00 RECEIVED
'"01.0113 000006 00
000W%00 MAY 17 2005
010173 Q06000 00
010173*7000.009 00
01jD113 000,01B 00 PERMIT COUNTEP
019173bWil.00
010473 . 000012*00
This Declaration of EaseMent for DrOewan (tbts 'Easement") is made this
day of 0.041,4,tj , 20 0 by
F the abov6 mentibned Grantor/Grantee, as the
owner of the property described above (the I.Loisly:* ......
RECITALS
A Grantor/Grantee is the owner of Lotd-... 5 kt-10, 11 and 12 of
Steinman's Meadowdale Estates per plat recorded
200410085349, Records of Snohomish County, Washingi0q. difig Number
B Grantor/Grantee is constructing homes o�-"*L�tS--w6l6-WlIl be served
by a common driveway, as shown on the drawings attactfea-tf§r6f6 a.iefthibds, A, B,
C and D (the "Dnvewaysl.
CITY COPY
for the
Grantor/Grantee desires to create easements over the Lots
.,�....--`JD6vevAys for the benefit of itself and the future owners (the "Owners') of the Lots
aqd��-provtde for the common maintenance of the Driveways.
-._In,.boijsider4jtion of the premises and other good and valuable consideration,
the ieadipt Snd.-t6f5biency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee
hj�repy
and..grant as follows-
C1, ^f gzn�sement Grantor declares and grants to the Owners of the
d egress for the
Lots atvL-aWMint_dvdf-, D eways for purposes of ingress an
Lots
2 Us'*e*.. Gftasement The Owners of the Lots shall not park motor
anner that would restrict the
vehicJes in the * =01 eways dr use the Driveways in a m
access of any er-t6 the Qwnees Lot
3. shall share equally in the cost of
maintenance, repair-anti-repi ent of the Driveways on the basis of one share for
each Lot owned.
4 Decisions '. All..4�69jo6 with* -.respect to work to be done under this
. ti`i#-4he Owners of the Lots on the basis of
Easement shall be made;JDY -major.Ky Y0 e
one vote for each Lot ownet�
5. PpMent In the ldvent,h .. decision js,Made under this Easement to have
work done on the Driveway, eabKOwner sftaff . pa . the Owners share of costs upon
not loss than 15 days' notice from another.-Ownerl.lat-.payment is due Payment may
be required in advance of the work being dond*.-
6. Lien. Each Owner of alofthill Wis a lien upon each other Lot for
h6L er, p
that Lots share of the cost of any work,%Aone. lus interest -and attorney's
fees in the event of default, which lien mij"4451�rec� in the same manner as a
matenalman's lien is foreclosed.
7. Duration. 'The rights granted hdFQkn.j00-biF*j!ffedve as of the date of
execution hereof and shall be perpetual.
Grantor harmless
8. fr4emn&. Grantee agrees to indetonify-anct--hold
from any loss or damage ansing out of Grantee's usb-difie.0vev�ay.
9 The benefits and bu ns:,* is. Easement are
Bir9ta—goig. bind u Iransferees or
appurtenant to and shall run with the Lots, shall be
successors in interest or assigns of the Grantee and G nt' r 'terffi--�ereof, and
shall not be extinguished by merger of title or transfer f anyN jhe*j_ots.
10 4+^rnaue Pan In th event it becomes necesgaly"f6r.-gily O�vner to
defend or institute legal proceedings as a result of the failure &Ariolhbr QWner to
comply with the terms the Easement the substantially previi1irij _`
9 pprb -in--such
e reimbursed by the substantially noh,�rivOing-piE.ty
litigation shall be enbtled to b
2
11 it d to,
..for all:costs incurred or expended in connection therewith includ ng but not rn e
....reasobable attorney's fees (including appellate fees) and court costs.
Enforcement In the event of a breach of any provision of this
gaaerffdnt,';the parties shall be enbtled to any and all remedies available at law or in
:;eqQi1Y--ificIUdlng;*btA not limited to, the equitable remedies of specific performance or
,mahaat Iction
.*.-.br prohibitory injunction issued by a court of appropriate junsd
2 ts. Any addition, variation, or modification to this Easement
shalf notlie e:fIecbv6"ur%e*S in writing and signed by each of the Owners of the Lots.
This Easement and the performance thereof shall be
nbowirn— construed, and regulated
governed;'interpre by the, laws of the State of
Washingtorl'.....,-*.
14 Ndtic6s An' nob6--..required or permitted to be served upon a party
hereto shall be in wnbilg 00-00-be deemed to have been served when delivered in
person to the phFty-,-6r.-ffiaded by certified mail, postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, addressed -to th6 . party. at the address of the party's property described
herein or to such othiaraddres.&as i.party shall by notice give to the other party
DATED as of the 'da and ypar fir6t atiove written.
GRANTOR: DEVELOPMENT, LLC, a Washington
Ce*ration
Aw
GRANTEE: MMR'" * L *'** PM�NT, LLC, a Washington
c corpo 6
orpo 0.
Z.
3
sTATIE OF WASHINGTON)
)ss.
.1C 5* f&-OF KING
I-*ce6fy.ftt-.I know or have satisfactory evidence that Ron Steinman is the
ojer�6n wtio' a ppiparied before me, and said person acknowledged that said person
sjgf*.d-1b.i6*instridM4-nt,-.on oath stated that said person was authorized to execute the
ins"i3rit.-sild:- . tibIcncrWledged it as the &Affk"A"f& daw z &2&Ar-.
of MMR-0'eveI6pment,-,L-LC, a Washington corpdration, to De the tree and voluntary
act of Buch -dorpm��oj��Sel-he uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Dailisa..th" �ay of February, 2005
L
i7gn ol Notary)
nt or Stamp Name of Nota
7. -��7(Legjbly Pn ry)
�A - 0 1, %60 20 -.�Qary Pj4blic in and for the State of Washington,
Rebidinh
A a
Ppointment qxpires_
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
I certify that I know or have'Wift&OY evidence that Ron Steinman is the
person who appeared before me, and. sa .erton. acknowledged that said person
id p
signed this instrument on oath stated fti4t1saia--0erson*-%vas authorized to execute the
instrument and ackno edged it as the 4k46@&j &e—
=iq
of MMR Development, C, a Washington porWabi to be the free and voluntary
act of such corporation for the uses and pu"
,Jbene�in the instrument
Dated this day of February, 2005
A E L
C(
(Signatuff
SUMP -v
C10 6 " . S, --of NdW
L
(Legibly Print or StanV N"� ..ry)
U U 4b�
a L -Wathington,
S Ut
Notary Public in and for th
Residing at
INAS My appointment expires__&
- fd,
4
20 0 4 0 a 0
SCALE IN FEET
i 3
LOT 5
b10173 000005 001
69TH 77.00.
4.0-
.00, L&
010173 OODOQ&-...!aq
RED DRIVEWAY
SEMENT
DATE 02/07/05
rmlran.mwmmo sure""
mm DUL~ "64 assay.-sm
STEINMAN'S MEADOWD 8
SHARED DRIVEWAY EA
EXHIBIT A
.46-'3o to 40 so
SCALE IN FEET
-69TH PL W
rio
!c
LOT 8
P1 0173 000008 001
L
DATE 02/07/05
SHARED D V�EWAY,,/
T
-.EASEMENT
......--i.OT. 7
Ot-01 73, 00,0007 1010
lM.?&ft%qwRMO suW to STEINMAN'S MEADOWDALF=--F=5TAW-t�:4-
.50 SHARED DRIVEWAY EA89MENTS
4w Stamm" LLC EXHIBIT B
so
o io 40
SCALE IN FEET
69
TH PL W
rd
J10 0
SHARED DRI�v AY
lcn
in
tl--'I'**'i'*'*""*"*-***�",*O,*I 9
LOT 10 : -l... . I
01.017Z Q00009
qiO173 000010 00 .... ... O�
DATE 02/07/05
mv 12"18a OWROW Sam top STEINMAN'S MEADOWDA
AN am&" M 2W93-2M SHARED DRIVEWAY E
GM&IGNASMUC ra JAM MANn FAXMM&ff,*M I EXHIBIT C
410' 30 20 0
DATE 02/07/05
40 so
IN FEET
PL W
FT,
—L--
SHARED DRIVEWAY
EASEMENT
ro
l(n
in
LQT 1.6
LOT 12
q10173 000012 00 1 1:01 13,:000011 0
lm"=,UvRwo W." 'or
Nu~ ON J=
GMMGDVMWUC fne"WAUMPANOMMIUAWN
co
STENNIAN'S MEADOWD,
SHARED DRIVEWAY E
EXHIBIT D
1�
fe
9
Of
CITY OF EDMONDS
St. I SCO 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220
ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Addendum to (check appropriate box) ODNS 0 EIS El Other MDNS
Description of current proposal: Lot gradin_q for construction of new single-family residences. Total gradi
for the Dlat (PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93) was 17.500 cubic Yards of cut. Total qradinq for new sinqle-famil
residences is estimated at 17,301 cubic yards of cut. Total grading for the Meadowdale Estates prowect is
estimated at 34,801 cubic Yards. Lot _qradinq estimate breakdown: Lot 1: 1,000: Lot 3: 1,000: Lot 4: 1,000:
Lot 5: 114: Lot 6: 387-'1ot 7:_1.,,900:'.,.Lot 8: 2,300: Lot 9: 2,4000 Lot 10: 2,400* Lot 11: 2,400: Lot 12: 2,400.
Proponent: Cathy Patterson, R.H. Hoover, Inc.
Location of proposal, including street address if any: Steinman's Meadowdale Estates (PRD-2002-40 & P�
2002-93) located at 6880 172 nd Street SW, Edmonds Washington.
Title of document being added to: Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance for Steinman's Meadowdale
Estates.
Agency that prepared document being adopted: City of Edmonds
Date document was issued: December 20, 2002
Addendum: —The above determination was made for the Meadowdale Estates Planned Residential
Development. The current proposal seeks to grade/fill the lots in the PRD for construction of single-family
jesidences. The Mitigated Determination -of Nonsignificance is seen as addressing all the pertinent
environmental impacts on the site. No significant and adverse impacts from the proeect are anticipated
that can't be addressed with the City's current regulations.
Name of agency making addendum: City of Edmonds
Contact person, if other than
responsible official: Gina Coccia, Planner Phone: 425.771.0220
Responsible official: Rob Chave
Position/Title: Planning Manager Phone: 425.771.0220
Address: 121 5 th Ave. N. Edmonds. WA 98020,
Date: July 14, 2005 -Signature:
WAC (4115/98) L:\TEW\Gina\SEPA—Addendu�Hoover.doc 7/14/05
?
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
To: Ron McConnell, Hearing Examiner
From:
Kathleen P/1"Or
Project Planner
Date: JANUARY 30,2003
File: PRD-2002-40 / P-2002-93
Hearing Date, Time, and Place:
A 12-lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
February 6 th 2003, At 9:30AM,
3rd Floor Meeting Room
Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
Applicant: Merle Steinman, Sr., represented by CHS Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................ 2
A. Application .......................................................................................................................................
2
B. 'Decision ............................................................................................................................................
2
ff.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................
3
A. Site Description .................................................................................................................................
3
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan ........................................................................................
3
C. Compliance with 20.15A, Environmental Review ............................................................................
5
D. Compliance with 20.1513, Critical Areas Review: ............................................................................
5
E. Compliance with 20.35, PRD's .........................................................................................................
6
F. Compliance with 20.75 Subdivisions ................................................................................................
8
III.
RECONSIDERATIONS..
............ 9
A. Request for Reconsideration .............................................................................................................
9
B. Appeals .............................................................................................................................................
9
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ..................................................................................
9
W.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ..................................................................................
9
V.
APPENDICES .....................................................................................................................
9
VI.
PARTIES OF RECORD ....................................................................................................
10
PRD-0240HE repor-t.doc / January 30, 2003/ Staff Report
W.eadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
le No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
Page 2 of 10
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applican: Merle Steinman Sr.
2. Site Location: 6880 172 nd St SW (see Attachment 1).
3. Reques: . To divide a lot with approximately 6.1 acres (265,845 square feet) into 12 lots in
a Single -Family Residential zone, RS-20 (see Attachment 2).
4. Review Process: A consolidated Formal Plat and PRD application shall be processed as
follows: The Architectural Design Board reviews the project and makes recommendations to,
the Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner then conducts a public hearing and makes a
recommendation to the City Council. The City Council has a closed record hearing and issues
the final decision.
Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 16.20, RS-
Single Family Residential.
b. Compliance with ECDC Title 18, Public Works Requirements.
c. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.15A, Environmental Review (SEPA).
d. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.1513, Critical Areas.
e. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.35, Planned Residential Developments (PRD's).
f. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.75, Subdivisions.
g. Compliance with ECDC Section 20. 100, Hearing Examiner, Planning Advisory Board
and City Council Review.
B. Decision
Based upon the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, Attachments and Exhibits submitted with the
application and during the comment period, the following is the recommendation of the City of
Edmonds Planning Division:
The Subdivision and PRD should be APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
2. Prior to approval of the final subdivision and PRD, the applicant must complete the
following requirements:
J�)___-,The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination dated. 12/20/02 (s
b) SInit a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife to comply with the
�nvironmental Determination. Refer to Attachment 10.
C) The applicant must comply with the ADB recommendations contained in Attachment
7.
d) Submit to the Planning Division a title report which verifies ownership of the subject
property on the date that the property owners(s) sign the subdivision documents.
Refer to Attachments 18 through 23.
e) Civil plans must be approved prior to recording. In completing the civil plans the
applicant must address the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required prior to
Recording" on Attachment 15.
Install fire hydrants and fire suppression to the specifications required by the
Engineering Division and the Fire Department. See Attachments 14 and 15.
g) Submit a one-year performance security bond in accordance with the requirements of
ECDC section 20.75.130.13 for any required improvements including landscaping
which have not been completed.
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
0
4Vadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
F.Cle No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
Page 3 of 10
h) Submit copies of the recording documents to the City for approval. These documents
shall include the following infon-nation:
(1) Place the following statement on the face of the plat mylar: "The setbacks
shown on the Plat Map are vested under the PRD/Forrnal Plat. No buildings
will be allowed in the indicated setback areas without a variance being
approved."
(2) Include on the plat all required infori-nation, including owner's certification,
hold harmless agreement� and staff approval blocks. -
(Applicants are now responsible for recording their own documents once they have
been approved.)
3. After recording the plat, the applicant must complete the following:
a) Provide the City Planning Division with two copies of the recorded plat, with the
recording number written on them.
b) Complete the Engineering Division conditions listed "Required with Building
Permit" on Attachment 3.
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
A. Size: The subject property is ro ' uglily rectangular, approximately 640 feet deep. The property
has approximately 340 feet of frontage along 172 nd St SW. The width extends to
approximately 440 feet wide approximately 200 feet from 172 nd . The total site area is
265,845 square feet. Refer to attachment 3 of Attachment 6.
B. Land Use: The site is undeveloped.
C. Zoning: The zoning of the subject property is Single Family Residential, RS-20 (see
Attachment 1).
D. Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes downward ' from east to west, with a
maximum change in elevation of 100 feet. Refer to attachment 3 of Attachment 6.
Neighboring Development And Zoning:
A. Surroundinp_ Development and Zoning: The adjacent properties to the south, east, and
west are zoned and developed under the RS-20 zoning classification. Properties in the near
vicinity are zoned with higher densities of RS-12 and RS-8. The property to the north is
within the City of Lynnwood's jurisdiction
B. Consistency with neighboring development: The size of the entire property and the
proposed single family development is consistent with the surrounding development.
B. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential Development and
development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which appear to apply to this project.
Residential Development
B. Goal. 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 housingfor all citizens should be approached realistically in
balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with thefollowing
policies:
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
Oreadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
File No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
Page 4 of 10
B. 1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
a rchitectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B. 4. Support retention and rehabilitation ofolder housing within Edmonds whenever
it is economicallyfeasible.
B. 5. Protect residential areasfrom incompatible land uses through the careful
control of other types of development and expansion based upon thefollowing
principles:
B.5.c Stable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land
use encroachments.
B. 5. d. Private properj�v must be protectedfrom adverse environmental
impacts of development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
BA Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural
constraints ofslopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
C. Goal. A broad range ofhousing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a.
choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the
following policies:
C. I Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development
solutionsfor residential subdivisions.
C.l.a Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant
benefitsfor owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open
space, etc).
Soils and Topography
B. Goal. Future development in areas ofsteep slope andpotentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with thefollowing policies:
B. 2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural
topography, reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the
naturalfeatures of the site, in accordance with thefollowing policies:
C. 1. Grading and Filling.
C. La. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
CIA Grading shall notjeopardize the stability ofany slope, or of an
adjacent property.
C. I.c. Only minimal amounts of cut andfill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved.
Fill shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property.
C. Ld. Fill and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
C.2. Building Construction
C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause
minimum disruption to the natural topography.
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
0
Meadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
File No. PRD-200240 & P-2002-93
Page 5 of 10
C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they
should be small and should not support construction of improvements
which do not conform to the topography.
C2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff
at predevelopment levels.
C3. Erosion Control.
C3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce
erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill propeny line.
C3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or
other materials to prevent erosion and siltation ofdrainage ways.
Infill Development: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan, pages 16-23 review the land
capacity of the City and address the City's strategy for meeting the population and employment
targets set for us by the.County and the State. The preferred strategy is called "Design Infill".
Designed Infill encourages infill development under the existing densities with design controls to
ensure that new development will fit into existing neighborhoods. PRD's are an identified tool to
allow this to be implemented. This project, a PRD, allows a property to be developed to its ftill
potential while at the same time protecting natural features and taking significant steps to ensure its
compatibility with the neighborhood.
2. Compliance with the Residential Development goals and policies: Typical elevations of
proposed residences, as shown -in attachment 3 of Attachment 6 illustrate high quality homes that
should fit into the neighborhood. The use of the PRD has allowed the applicant to set aside open
space areas. The landscape plan in attachment 3 of 6 illustrates a path through the woods that will
wrap around the plat. The buffer areas will also provide privacy to the adjacent residents.
Compliance with the Soils and Topography goals and policies: The applicant has proposed
residences that will minimize grading and preserve the natural topography.
C. Compliance with 20.15A, Environmental Review
Environmental Determination: A Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (MDNS) was
issued by the City's SEPA Responsible Official on December 20, 2002. The Determination is
included as Attachment 12. An appeal of the Environmental Determination was filed and will be
decided upon by the Hearing Examiner under file no. AP-2003-3. Refer to Attachment 24. At this
time the applicant and the City have satisfied the requirements of SEPA.
D. Compliance with 20.15B, Critical Areas Review:
Critical Areas Review number: CA-2001-43 (see Attachment 9).
Results of Critical Areas Review: A Study Required Determination was issued to verify the
degree and extent of slopes on the property, as well as any wildlife habitat.
The applicant submitted a topography map as shown in attachment 3 of Attachment 6. and in
Attachment 11. In reviewing the topographic map, none of the slopes on the property meet the
ECDC 20.1513's definition of a steep slope hazard area. A steep slope hazard area is defined as
being at least 20 feet in actual height from the top to the toe of the slope, and a slope of at least
40%. From documents submitted by the applicant, staff has verified that none of the sloped areas
on the subject property are as steep as 40%.
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
Tadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
i'le No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
Page 6 of 10
It does appear that the ravine located in the northwest comer of the site, north of the proposed
drainage facility has a 38% slope. As the slope extends westward onto the adjacent property, it
appears to reach 40%, approximately 50 feet from the subject property.
The applicant has submitted a letter from a geotechnical engineer to reduce the required steep
slope buffer from 50 feet to 10 feet. As a result, the proposed drainage facilities must be a total of
25 feet from the edge of the 40% slope. This is more than adequate, since the slope is further than
25 f6et away from the drainage facilities. See Attachment 11.
The study requirement also requires that the applicant verify any wildlife habitat requirements with
the state Department of Fish and Wildlife. It appears that there is nothing on file with the
Department of Fish and Wildlife (DFW); but as a condition of preliminary approval, the applicant
must submit written verification from DFW.
3. Elements of the proposed Development as it relates to Critical Areas: Subject to the
recommended condition of approval, the applicant has met the Critical Areas requirement. -
Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following should be done to
ensure compliance with ECDC chapter 20.15B Critical Areas:
A. The applicant must submit written verification from the DFW that there are no wildlife issues
in terms of developing the property.
E. Compliance with 20.35, PRD's
1. Architectural Design Board review of the PRD
A. The ADB reviewed the proposed project on December 18 1h 2002, and recommended
approval of the project with the following conditions (see Attachment 8).
BOARDMEMBER LOWELL MOVED, SECONDED BY BOARDMEMBER
RUBENKONIG, TO PROPOSE THAT THE ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
RECOMMEND TO THE HEARING EXAMINER APPROVAL OF THE PROPOSED
PRD-2002-40, WITH THE FOLLOWING CONDITIONS:
THAT LOTS 4 THROUGHT 8 SHOULD BE DEVELOPED CONSISTENTLY WITH
THE DESIGN SHOWN FOR LOTS I THROUGH 3 AND 9 THROUGH 12.
IN ADDITION, PROVIDE THE RETENTION OF EXISTING TREES AS MUCH AS
POSSIBLE, AND INCORPORATE ALL OF THE CHANGES AS SHOWN ON THE
LANDSCAPING PLAN WITH THE RECREATION COURT OVER THE
DETENTION VAULT.
MOTION CARRIED UNANIMOUSLY.
2. Modification of Standards, ECDC 20.35.030
A. The proposed PRD / Plat application proposes to modify the following development
standards, interior building setbacks, lot sizes and lot width (see Attachment 2 for the
applicant's declarations).
1.) Density for a PRD is determined as follows: Gross Lot Area/Minimum Lot size of
underlying zoning. If more than five lots, the applicant may round to the nearest whole
number. In this case 265,845/20,000=13.3. This would allow the applicant to propose a
13 lot PRD. However, they are only proposing a 12 lot PRD and Plat.
2.) The proposed setbacks match or are greater than the required setbacks for the
underlying zone around the perimeter of the site. The interior setbacks, those setbacks
between the proposed buildings and their proposed street will be as follows: Street
setbacks — 25 feet, Side setbacks — 10 feet, and Rear setbacks — 20 feet. Lots I and 2
have rear setbacks of 25 feet, in order to meet underlying zoning requirements.
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
freadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
r
.ile No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
Page 7 of 10
3.) While the underlying zoning requires 100 feet in width for each lot,. a variable lot width
is entirely appropriate for a PRD. As proposed, the lot widths range from 80 feet to 100
feet.
B. Conclusion: All of the proposed modifications are permissible if the modification
approval criteria are met.
3. Modification Approval Criteria, ECDC 20.35.040
A. The PRD's compatibility with surrounding properties related to (see Attachment 2):
1.) Providing more landscaping and greater buffering: A landscape plan has been
submitted with,the proposal. A common open space/buffer area surrounds the plat on
the north, east, and west sides, except for lots I and 2, which are heavily landscaped.
Street trees are also proposed along 172 nd St SW and the proposed access road for the
plat. Refer to attachment 3 of Attachment 6.
2.) Efficient and safe circulation: Pedestrian pathways and sidewalks will aid in the
overall safe pedestrian circulation.
3.) Architectural Design: The ADB was determined that the design of the proposed
residences will fit in with the neighborhood. Much has been done to de-emphasize the
garage, and add pedestrian scale to the residences. They have been designed to fit with
the existing topography, which will result in minimizing overall grading.
4.) Exterior setbacks: All standard exterior setbacks have been maintained.
5.) Reduced visual impact: With a standard 20,000 sq. ft. lot, a building with a footprint of
7,000 sq. ft. could be approved. Due to the size of the proposed lots, the proposed
houses would have significantly less bulk than is allowable under RS-20 standards.
Rather than 7,000 sq. ft. of buildable area, the lots will average 3,800 square feet of
buildable area.
6.) Preservation of Natural Features: By designing residences to fit with the slope,
the slope will be preserved.
7.) Reduction of impervious surfaces: The reduction of buildable lot area will
significantly reduce the overall total impervious area, as well as the use of shared
driveways.
B. Conclusion: All of the modification approval criteria appear to be met.
4. Decision Criteria, ECDC 20.35.050
A. A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria:
1.) Design Criteria: I This criterion is met by complying with the Single Family
Design Criteria and providing at least 2 more results from the A2 through A6.
In reviewing the application, it appears to meet items A4, A5, and A6. The applicant
has provided open space areas above and beyond what is required of a PRD.
Approximately 38% of the site is designated open space/recreational area. The
applicant has also provided landscaping, both in and around the PRD. He has worked
to preserve the� natural topography of the site, by designing residences that fit with the
slope; and working to maintain the presence of the existing trees in the buffer area.
Refer to Attachments 2 through 6.
2.) Public Facilities: This Plat / PRD is served by all public facilities in the area.
3.) Perimeter Design: The open space area on the north, east, and west sides will
buffer the perimeter of the plat, although lots I and 2 are adjacent to an existing house
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
Wadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
ele No. PRD-200240 & P-2002-93
Page 8 of 10
and no extra buffering is required above the required setback. The west sides of Lots I
and 2 will be heavily landscaped, as indicated by the landscape plan in Attachment 6.
d
Street trees and appropriate landscaping is shown along the street frontage of 172'
4.) Open Space and Recreation: Refer to the landscape plan in Attachment 6 which
identifies a wide range of open space and recreation areas. The plan shows a trail
winding through the buffer area, with exercise facilities, viewing points, and benches
along the pathway. The detention vault has been screened by a recreational court which
will be placed over top of the vault., The recreational court will be heavily landscaped.
The open space areas between Lots 4 and 5 will have terraced gardens.
5.) Street and Sidewalks: The City's Traffic Engineer reviewed the project and indicated
any requirements that will be made of the applicant as part of Attachment 15.
B. Conclusion: Generally the proposed PRD meets the decision,criteria. Minor
conditions recommended by the ADB and the Engineering Department should be included in
any approval.
Compliance with 20.75 Subdivisions
I . Subdivision Review Criteria
A. Environmental Resources
1.) The ADB's recommended condition of approval regarding tree retention, and the open
spaceibuffer area as proposed will ensure that Environmental Resources are being
protected in the City of Edmonds.
B. Lot and Street Layout
1.) This criteria requires staff to find that the proposed subdivision is consistent with the
dimensional requirements of the zoning ordinance and also that the lots would
ultimately be buildable. Based on a review of the project and the analysis in this section
each of the lots appears to be, buildable.
2.) Lot sizes and dimensions: This criterion doesret apply to individual lots in a PRD.
3.) Setbacks: Setbacks from perimeter lot lines are proposed as follows:
Street setback from 172 d St. SW lots I and 12: 2 5' (minimum 2 5' required).
Setback from the west propeM line, lots I and 2: 25' (minimum 25' required).
Setback from the west property line, lots, 3, 4, and 5: 120+' (min. 25' required)
Setback from the north prope!1y line: 50+' (minimum 25' required)
Setback from east propeqy line: minimum 70+'(n-iinimurn 25' required)
4.) Comer Lots: None.
5.) Flag or Interior lot determination: None.
6.) Lot Coverage of Existing Buildings on Proposed Lots:
(a) See the PRD criteria on this issue. It is acceptable.
C. Dedications
1.) See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 15).
D. Improvements.
1.) See City Engineer's Report (Attachment 15).
E. Flood Plain Management
1.) This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
4Feadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
le No. PRD-200240 & P-2002-93
Page 9 of 10
2. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
A. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Comprehensive Plan. See section
11.13 for details.
3. Compliance with the Zoning Code
A. Staff finds this project to comply with the provisions of the Zoning Code, see section II.F. Lb
for details.
4. Compliance with the Flood Plain Management Provisions
A. This project is not in a FEMA designated Flood Plain.
111. RECONSIDERATIONS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsiderations. 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. 100.0 1 O.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision if a written request is
filed within ten (10) working days of the posting of the notice required by this section. The
reconsideration request must cite specific references to the fmdings and/or the criteria contained in the
ordinances governing the type of application being reviewed.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision 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 14 calendar days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for reconsideration is
filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock for filing an appeal is stopped
until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his
decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it
was stopped. For.example, if a reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an
individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the.Hearing Examiner issues his
decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the staff request a change in the valuation of
the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office.
V. APPENDICES
Attachments: In the interest of simplifying the submitted application materials and public comments
related to the SEPA appeal and the Plat / PRD as well as to conserve paper, Attachments
for AP-2003-3, PRD-2002-40 and P-2002-93 will be provided in a separate Attachment
packet. See Exhibit 3
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Heating Examiner
4Veadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
F.le No. PRD-200240 & P-2002-93
Page 10 of 10
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD
Parties of Record have been identified in Attachment 54 of the separate Attachment Packet. See Exhibit 3
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
DATE REC
CA,
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICAT
OZIR I �E/NA OF BUSINESS /vl& ,
. Mf)a�, T
MAILING ADDRESS
[P'�bp KW I OV60flD
CITY- ZIP [TELEPHONE
A-.. :�'. A A A I eN 04, - I a _ �% �
PERMIT EXPIRES
`111� "TI
I USE PERMIT
ZONE NUMBER
Job SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
PLAT NAME/SLIBDIVISION NO. LOT N LID NO.
LID FEE $
-fE—SCP Approved
PUBLIC RIG4T OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required
Street Use Permit Req'd
EXISTING #0000 PROPOSED inspection Required
Sidewalk Required
Underground-
�!
11. - .. -1 — __ I
ADDD�Ess
REMA Rd
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
I
z
�LTY Zip
TELEPHONE
I rj k) n2. W *V;?=
NAME
cSi- N
SfAMA-I'M U mez-A -riww L,
(,4--) - 0 - �
q�!n
GINEERINGREXIEWED BY DATE
�tm n& Cl
ADDRESS
0,
DATE
LCLCI
FIRE REVIEWED BY
CITY ZIP
TELEPHONE
rL
0
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
REO'D
PBOND
OSTED
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
* 11_�
31NSPECTION
YES NNO
$ 00'
EVIEW
OMPLET EX EMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED
HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
PROPERTY VITyrf�C!L
N
EXP
EW brRESIDENTIAL IePLUMBING MECH
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED. PROPOSED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRONT SIDE REAR
PROPOS D.SETBACKS (FT.)
F.F IDE REAR
COMPLIANCE OR
TA
-1-6' 1 D b W-'
1
BID' It/it' W
zz
COMMERCIAL
ADDITION CHANGE OF USE
5
PARKING
LOT AREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DAI
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY El SIGN
REQ-D I PROVIDED
141D
_I
m
. I . av I el
P-1-1 IW 06
E] REPAIR J8 GM CYOS FENCE X
( FT)
REMARKS -4
DEMOLISH TANK 13 OTHER
P"*-Poorl'. 0L+0
*ARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
ARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPI-AIN:
CHE-IPKED BY
F CTON
ITYPE 0 N
_CODE- occul�
4",YCTIO
t2
>C77 GROU
1( 1+_�� ,
NUMBER
OF
NUM ER OF
B
DWELLING
CRITICAL
AREAS d 5
w
0
SPECIAL I�SPE;TION I AXIEA
OCCUPANT
0
STORE S
UNITS
-
NUMBER
REQUIRED-11!k
UD j LOAD
JX . (
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
-F
'
REMARKS A
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/IBC109/IRC109 FINAL INSPECTIONREO'D
z
LaIjeL -1 C_54 Sr- 1. LINJ4- (AP3
5
Nu �,% I
Cg �-o sr",P: I P)912�
1 Lill S r--
hylk It S-2 1
VALUATION
$
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
/HE6T SOURCE Gj)�MG % Building Permit City Surcharge
VESTED DATE
PLAN CHECK NO: Plumbing Base Fee
lqc5 7 Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
I= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading
330
23 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
2- tngr. Review
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
W Engr. Inspection
5-0
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
co *APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS� ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
X FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OFTHIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
2 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt Due
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
21
Recording Fee Receipt #
0A95
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM -THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC. CALL This application is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABQ8 CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt Is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSAT I URANCE AND RCW 18.27.
Lis SIGNAARE DATE
D;SIGNED
SIG URE(O%F�E iENV (425)
( 1 0 rA
771-0220 AWD IDATE
ATTENT14g Off 1333
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
ORIGINAL-FILE - YELLOW- INS14ECTOR
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/iRC110. PINK -OWNER - GOLD -ASSESSOR
09/03 -YOU ARE MAKINGA COPIES
PRESS HARD
NrItten dimensions on this drovqln(@ sholl have precedence over
scaled dimensions. Contoctor sholl verify all dimensions,
conditions, etc., pertaining to the r4ork be -fore proceeding.
The Ov4ner mvet be notified of any variations from the
dimensions and/or conditions shovqn on these c1rav4Inq5. Any
such variation shall be, resolved by the Oviner prior to
proceeding vqIth the i-4ork, or the controctor shall accept
fvII responsibility for the cost to rectify some.
L. 0 7 �7
ADDRESS
1-7115 (2cith PI. N
EDMONDS, NA.
PARCEL NUMBER 0101-75-000-00-7-00
LOT AREA-. ci,10-7 SGUARE FEET
LEOAL DESCRIPTION
LOT(S) 126, MEADONDALE BEACH, AGGORDINO TO THE FLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF FLATS, FA&E(S) 55, RECORDS OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NASHINOTON;
EXCEPT THE EAST 200 FEET THEREOF;
AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 205 FEET OF THE NEST 100 FEET THEREOF;
AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF5AID LOT 12(b GONVE)"ED TO
THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED UNDER
REGORDINO NUMBER 25-75256.
SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF NA5HINOTON.
VERTICAL DATUM:
BENCHMARK (E3M):
ORADINO PLAN:
NAD 55/cfl PER RECORDED
SURVEY #20030514500-7
RIM OF SANITARY SENER MANHOLE
11GII, ELEVATION 355.15'FER
ENI(31NEERIN6 DRANIN65.
GUT: 605 CU. YDS- , FOUNDATION EXGAVATIOP-y-,,�
FILL: 605 GU. YPS. , LOTS 3, 4
BALANCED ON SITE. 0CP
AVERA&E LOT SLOPE
EAST TO NEST 414' - 586= 28'
20 VERTICAL FEET - 2-7.-7% SLOPE
101 HORIZONTAL FEET
HE16HT CALCULATION - LOT -7
A= 406.0'
B= 40c[.4'
G= 5c14.5'
D= 3cf(b.2'
160(o.1'14= 401.55'
AVERAC7E ORIC71NAL ORADE 401.55'
MAXIMUM BUILDIN& HEI6HT 426.55' (259
ACTUAL BUILDIN6 HEI6HT 422.80'
MAXIMUM &ARA6E FLR. ELEV. 5cil.25'
L� (:::) 7 6��
MAIN FLR. g 5&5.001
Rl E R 05
MAINTAIN PLAT INST,
L. 4:::) 7 "7
I-,:;) 1 /-"5 HE
..... . . .. -zzz—
. ................
4+4
V40 6). -------
4040
---------------
402.0 20' BS-EL7- ��4
_I ja I -oil
oil
Q) 400.0
4.8
B 4b
A 406 0
401.
y'/
0
E3qcf.o — -----
. x
q 6. 0
x
x 3q-7.0',
3cfb
--- 4.o PbAN-4050
c)
C)
5c14 x -t-K�\IN FLR. (g 5c`18.0
5q2.0 1520 SF
11, 1-1 X" \
,390--,
-0
D DAIVIAGE
51 7-FE-NCE PER
GITY STD. DETAIII
D EROSION CONTROL
SHORT PLAT
EROSION GONTROL
MEASURES TO ---
3cf4ff
105 5F
1b.21 -
I? 7-=
x
7
3b-7.5__j
-- — --- — — — — — — — — -
5c[4.5
DRIVENAY
clb-7 5�
x
x
7
05
41
Zone P a - JD7,440 Comer WFlag W
Setbacks ��uired Actual
F — I
9fftc4Front(w)-- Z;Fil 0
w-
Sides( VJ16)
Rear
Other
lieight
APPROVED BY PLANNING
PROPOSED ROC,<ERY
n a'-O" H167H MAX. EAGH HALL
REFER TO GIT�r' OF EDMONDS
`�TANDARD:
IIR P_r
ER"r DETAIL
"'T
---"TIEP,E OC,<ERIES DETAIL
Ln
41, Pvc, IT16,,HTLINE
TO STOPM SVSTEM
I T A P'77 zr--� '0 0 -0 0, M"TYPE I GB.
)00 00
000 0 0
(-)0
0 0 C�� (
0 0 0 00 TOP= 5a6.5'
00 000
0000.0()Oc
0
0 0 000 00
L (:::) 7 a
MAIN FLR. (g 5q-1.5'
6ARA6E FLR. g 5b-7.501
=1 M 11 Mo I MR
0 u 0 00-0 0
LOT GOVERAOE: BE MAINTAINED. 663 00 000 00
(PROPOSED) 0 '000000
L 0 00
000 "0
RESIDENGE/OARAOE Ib2O SGUARE FEET E30770�� OF LO�/NF-fzZ 01�)
GOV.AREAS 261 SGUARE FEET 4 -73 03 7130 '�r
EMPO CONSTRUCTION
TOTAL 2,ObI SGUARE FEET (22.c1%) SF-F- 5H7. E RANCE REQUIRED
55% MAXIMUM GONSTRUGTION ENTRANGE PER
LOT GOVERAOE atftu- �Oct GITY STD. DETAIL
IMPERVIOUS AREAS AGOEPTABLE TIGHTLINE I &Tro/ 6" PVC, T16HTLINE
(PROPOSED) SDR 35 MATERIAL WATER & SEWER TO STORM SYSTEM----�
RESIDENCE 2221 SGUARE FEET SCH 40 .11148PECTIONS REQ'D.
(N/ OVERAHNOS) N - 12 OALL. 428,7'�i-o220 EXT. 13,n AS NOTED
FRIO HANCOR 13�1� ENNGiNE I
DRIVE � NALK 12cl& SGUARE FEET RIG.AT-OF' WAY COINiSTRUCTION PERMIT
TOTAL 5,51-7 SGUARE FEET (35.6%) Date: AND INSPECTION REQUIRED
x
REFERENCES E311,11
RECORD OF SURVEY OF TH15 LEOEND: S17r= f=L.AN L-07 -7
PROPERTY BY GHS ENOINERS, INC., RZ-MCNIVA GB F SEE C5.7ENER-AL NOTE5 10'-011
UNDER REGORDINO NO. 20030514500-7, EXISTIN6 ORADE — — — — -
SNOHOMISH GOUNTY, HASHINOTON PROPOSED 6RADE
ORIC-21NAL ORADE 012 5 10 15 25 50
FOR HEI6HT CALCULATION 5 1- C
55 RESUB
7
E355.15' V JUL 0 5 2005
,,UILDING DE ARTMENT
CIV M S
OF ED OND
2512
AR
G,
STATE OF
M NASH
WASfjlNGTON
4�
IS) t-
lu 43MQ
G
zjt 0
4 V
z
0
0
U)
z
z
lu
I t-
T Vj
<
fa
lu lu
V
0
cim
uj
3:
0
>,
M n -1
Z
<
ju
. I-
0-
L
0-
d a t e,- 5/12/05
permit:
re,vislane:
6/28/05 FLANNIN&
Ep H EE E� -F
co 0
PUEBLO / DNG / BUILDER5
HOOVER PREKER HOME5
MEADONDALE / LOT'7
H
Go
�(oo \le (�-
S- f7K
RESUB
jUL 0 5 2005
G DEPMA"ENT
BUILDINO 0 0
Cl-ry F E NDS