17117 69TH PL W.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII
5312
17117 69TH PL W
ADDRESS: / 7// 7 - li�'L ZAJ
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: C) I () 1 -7 3 -000 005 (W
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): "ZW-5 —031 cp
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:. DETERMINATION: [] Conditional Waiver )R! Mtud 94'�Oel 0 Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DA
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE:- lop),6? -qo 1p-02--q e�) LOT: A BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER: I
LATEMP\DST's\Fonns\Street File Checklist.doc
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
- 11 C . I b') -
0-
0
City of Edmonds PERMIT NO: 004�
PERMIT EXPIRES
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
Address of Construction: (j qm PL W LID #
Property Tax Account Parcel No. 0 [ 0(1�) - 60 2 --c"N)
Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved b
Owner and/or Contractor: _H - HDo Vey -
Contractor License o —Building Permit ?M5.
Single Family Invasion into City *Right -of Way: $Yes No
Fj Multi -Family (No. of Units *RW Construction Permit
F� Commercial (No. of Units Cross other "Private Property: 0 Yes ' El No
F-1 Public "Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
Own,( �ntract
Owner or ��ctor signature and acknowledgement statement: Date
By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's public handout entitled
ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein.
9 CALL DIAL -A- ' DIG; (1-800-4Zf 75555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION iff
9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extensionivVea
24 HOUR NOTICE REOUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REOUESTS.
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 Inspect o*n: Date: Initial:
Partial Inspection: -Date:- Initial:
FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: Initial: As -built to Street File:
t- PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE t�
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector. Buff Copy:, Applicant
L;temp;bldg;forms;sspennitjlg4/00
.1 Of
w— ml,
GARAGE
H
A
c�
to
p
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS - BUILTS
ADDRESS:
17117
HOMEOWNER:
R.H. HOOVER INC.
DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
10/05/05 1. ABILA
69TH PL W
CONTRACTOR:
R.H. HOOVER INC.
SCALE: PERMIT NO.
NTS 110046
IWZ� zn' - , — z 5 N-1 � r , " r ,
OKI,
ik�
J X v,
Ara I
;,Or
10/7/2005
IN—
�j
A-
af
oio
, aw
"0" f..
I.- V.; 'f7
"-AAL . . . . . . iv
41
f2
xo,
41
vi
p
IXF
al
10/21/2005
A�
--,l 0721 /2005
11 .41s, 1. At,"
eQ
FIR2 -Z 1-111i .....
J., wz!`
.Irz
Ar
AW
wo
0 W
10,
A:P1,
0014,12 UO
I Plujip �ALLA JNUF
X;g,
74, ii;
. . . . . . . . . .
77,
wl�
Mr
,e
S-7
11RECEINED.
CA File No: EA4?)
16 2001 Critical Areas Checklist
gra
'e 1nf6fHkfi!iM#V&/topo phy/ hydrology/ vegetation)
.L. Site. Address/ Location: 6880 1�79nd -qw- Fdmondq, wwzh
2. Property Tax Acco unt Number. oosi --ii 000l26ol
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square,feet): � 6 acres
4. Is this site currently developed? yes, no.
If yes; how is site developed7
5. 'Describ�- the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
6.
8.
a
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 s ite 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):
Site contains areas of year-round standing water: no Approx. Depth:
Site contains areas of seasonal stand Mig water: no Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
no
Site is in the floodway n, flo.odplain no of a water1course.
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 mixed
urban landscaped (lawnshrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: . no
IGC
17M
Se
�'e CJ
G:\,Slwe\Library\Planning\Forms\Public Handoutsk Critical Areas Checklist Doc/l -16-2001
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Merle Steinman Sr. & Determination #: CA-0143
Associates
Project Name: I ] Permit Number: I
Site Location: 6880172 nd Street SW Property Tax Acct #: 5131000 126 01
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During 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: I
Steep Slope Hazard Area Delineation Requirements:
To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey prepared by a
Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope 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
.10f OP
eet from the top or toe of the sl e, 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 propo, sed 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 cont ' act Tony Oppen-nann 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 rinds that the proposed
development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional
waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Please call me at 771-0220 if you have
any questions.
Name Signattire Date
Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds
website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
2
'PATE RECEIVED
PERMIT EXPI IRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
PERMIT
NUMBERe<00S
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
0 SUIfE/APT#
D ss (A/
OWNER NAME/NNE OF)BUSINESS
VP,/ r. L.
LOT NO LID NO.
C —JAILING ADDRE6g OF
LID FEE $
D TESCIP Approved
PUBLIC RIGHT OF PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP Permit R led
LN
RW
Street Use P:qu:, Req'd
7___
CITY ZIP ITELEPHONE
EXISTING Inspection Required 13
sidewalk Required 13
FT Underground
REQUIRED DEDICATION— Wiring required 13
NAME
METER SIZE LINE VZE NO. 0 FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
NO E3
0
3
ju,� nq_e��
151
zqztla!�
—
ADDRESS
REMARKS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROLIDRAINAGE
z
z
L&
ep
CA ZIP ITELEPHONE
I'
rk_the7 d -4-41 -7
.
0. 19;� vim rs -1�6 fl-f U Aj
NAME
CEIL #
MINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
0-L
- 1� _111 9
tl�D F)
9
A66RESS
0
011
Sk
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE
Q9—
W
cc
ZIP
ITELEPH ONE
0
V/ )h.b �L
_
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB#
INSqPEEQC�ION
BOND
StATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
I D
EIYES ENO
POSTED
1$
1911 11
[+U2W ;� I -� 1-2- L 1
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
lCm
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT OARCEL NO.
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED, I PROPOSED
ul
_j
EXP X ,
1,51 14-4-�
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED PROPOSED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT)
FRONT SIDE REAR
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRONT UR SIDE REAR
COMPIL ANCE OR
CHANGIE
13 ADDITION COMMERCIAL A OF USE
7,91 lot 7,01
'053, lz!/1-61 61,
z
PARKING
PROVIDE
REO'D 'D
LOT AREA
PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
1:1 REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN
FENCE
3).—
11 REPAIR GRADING
CYDS 13 X FT)
REMARKS,
DEMOLISH TANK 1:1 OTHER
I I"PP-Q-07-4-0 VA eadOWCtCL lt�')
4-C, 5
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
z
ROCKERY 1:1 FIRE ALARM
IREMARKS
frYPE OF USE, BUSINESS"W'AtTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
7"7
5PIL,
CHVCKED BY, ITYPE
OF CONSTRUCT]
OCCUPANT
GROUP
r>�2
1:
U P�
to
NUMBER NUMBER
OF DWELLING
STORIES 3 1 UNITS
OF
CRITICAL
AREAS
NUMBER
SPECIAL I�SPE TION JAREA
REOU IRED
OCCUPANT
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE Jt;L�
S
U
PROGRESS INSPEC71ONS PER UBC 108/ IBC109/ IRC109 FINAL INSPECTION REO'D
z
"L'- La
10 cc—'ri - I V�v S't—,:
6 1-710 CU
0
I
L4
-i L I OD L
ty,
.0
Vr_
z
VALUATION
$
I' n
o
FEE
ID escription
FEE
Plan Check
-71
State Surcharge
OURCE LAZING N %
A I Jblh I %
Bui Idin I g Permit City Surcharge,
.1 L.& � I
PLAN CHECK NO-VESTED DATE
�qO
Plumbing Base Fee 86-
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THg WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
I= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading 7D
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERM ISSION.
Engr. Review �71 '26
w PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
'ILI PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION -
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD, HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS,OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT� ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due M1.15 0,
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. -
Recording Fee Receipt #
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 AGRE , E TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
This application is not a permit until signed by the
CALL
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE -OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSAT��URANCE AND RCW 18.27.
I Sj1WTURE (OWNER A GENP DATE S NED
f /b IPLS SIGNA�TUL, DATI
771-0220
—11-L X—SE6137 ATE
ATTE TIOO
'ITISUN
EXT I �33
t-fO USE OR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADEAND APPROVALOR A CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
ORIGINAL-FILE YELLOw -INSPECTOR.,,
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/lBC110/lRC110.,
PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
09/03 PRESS HARD -.YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
oi- -s V, D 0 C�006J'5+e�vij-l>t VVI*t-k)
SVIDW" -f�-Ovl to oir-%cl 9-12.."
PLANNING DATA
NAME: i P�14 ftDytw DATE: - 00- 15- 7vO05
SITEADDRESS: 1-+11-+ (OqT'4 platce W I o+ 4i -8 PLAN CHK#: 095-1 4!j
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: SF-liL-
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: Yes No)
MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: (Yes /0 FLAG LOT: (Yes No)
PR-D ZONING: P,5 - 2-0 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: OA ,zo o I - 00 4.25
Study Required: V,4frj�h u C_ompj-e_�" p-er
0 Ll Waiver PFLD no
U, Ll slopc:5 � *c)*/. +vLAod On
Condition --al Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION: AddtN�&Am +v
LJ Fee MPN�2 -fo(* PF-9-0j'.L+0 B'F-07'-'9�3
LJ Checklist CkjtCk-4I'6+ stAto m (44fd
LJ APO list w/ notarized form
(Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
Ll Exempt (0 141 C/ GLAt t' (a 2.9 C-X fil
QF=TRArWQe
PP-12 Required Setbacks: (N) (s) (IS)
5ta ff Irr'?o rt: (W ) Street: -2-6' Left Side: 101 Right Side: 16 Rear: 7,01
Myer'+ 145 Actual Setbacks:
'�" f (A -r' IQ 1 Street: E52,' Left Side: 31 Right Side: 7-1 Rear: 50"H-0 p0i-110)
re- ox 2-0, Street map , checked for additional setback required? (Yes / No 1A%A) rece'n+ FFL-P
J DETACHED STRUCTURES: tj or)ir- sh owvl
N ROCKERIES: --+
L3 FENCEsrTRELLISES: WC)Air, 6V10VVV*A-
BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION:g 5 fire-, p i awe- a c
STAIRS / DECKS: > 30 " CleG14- MCP�-�S 6 e-+-6 61C. V-.S
0PARKING: Required: Actual: '77 ( S &�-01 50) 7,C)SI 0 Lovc'"ge-
LOT COVtKAUL: a -r- CV-. / C-ov - CY) t'ry (0
LOT AREA: 17, 1 re-e-i ck-p-vi Ge- 1,5 Ck V- a 6 r-
0v- Calculations: A-
eBUILDING HEIGHT: 5 - 14 ()+- I &
DatumPoint: 65mvi Datum Elevation:
\��'Maximum Allowed: Actual Height:
A.D.U.CREATED?:&Yes) oh(., VAhNV/y\6V\0\1VV\- D
PP-P SUBDIVISION: MeAan\A/d0L1-e- PP-9-01'4D P. 0-1--R3
-V q 1:
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: okvc'va e��
OTHER: NgAdowd4le- 6SMits"= /2- IDI-6 ai- 6,�9'90 S&
rid3e. I
Plan Review By:--�'Loy�t� 0
NewBPPIanningDataFonn. DOC
ot ciu a I
vj�j V% V
7V
N
WAR p
Ell 471
ef
rs
Come: tone
Gootechnioaly I ric'.
January 6, 2005
Ms. Cathy Patterson
Hoover Premier Homes,
11 63 00 Mill Creek Boulevard, # 10 8
Mill Creek, WA 98012
Geoteclmical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1791
Dear Ms. Patterson:
INTRODUCTION
0
117625-1301� Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: 425-844-1977
Fax: 425-844-1987
RECEIVED
MAY 1 72505
PERMIT GDO'N"FUR'
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 -17? 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 L ot 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 f6r 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
t hat 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 not own. Ile
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 Deceniber 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 (69b Place W) was paved. Site grading was also complete
and grass was growing on all. of the lots. The stomi 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.
Generally, the ground surface slopes downward towards the west at approximately 3 Horizontal to I
Vertical (311: IV). An existing residence borders the southwestern comer of the site and 172nd 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.
RefitGeoteclinical Engineering
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 gla ciation, the . Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, ende I d 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 S I tade, 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 s . equence includes recessional outwa'sh sand underlain by glacial till.
The site is mapped as being underlain by glacial till (Preliminary Surficial Geolo
-gic MgR of the Edmonds
East and Edmonds West Qqadrangles, -Snohomish and Kiniz 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, com monly
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 outwasb. In. contrast to glacial till, rec . essional
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 11.0 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. 'Me approximate locations of
the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. . 'ne 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.
otechnical Engineering Rell
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 4
Ou I r explorations encountered glacial till, recessional outwash, and filf. 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 ou twash. Test Pit 2 encountered a layer of topsoil underlying the fill. The topsoil layer was
underlain by, weathered 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 associai e*d with surface rimoff. 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 ha ' zard criteria used for deterniination of affected areas includes soil type, slope gradient,
vegetation cover, and ground water conditions.* Ile erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and
the specific surface soil types (group clas"cation), 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 sinface soils were classified
using the SCS classification system as Unit 5 (Alderwood — Urban Land Complex). The corresponding -
geologic unit for these soils is till, 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 (BUTs) and applicable
codes should be f6llowed 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.
Geot&chhical Engineering RJR
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
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 (113C). Site conditions best fit the IBC definition for Site Class-C ("V I ery dense soil and
soft rock"). The IBC 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 wfll ge : nerally 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 ove'r-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. The resulting subgrade should be compacted to a
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering RepoO
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 6
firm, non-yieldmig condition. Areas observed to pump or weave should be repaired prior to placing hard
surfaces.
The on -site glacialfill 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 finer than a Standard
V.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 Refit
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 maxinum dry density. The
moisture content of the soil to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum so that a
readily compactable 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 t�pe and size suffici ent to attain the desired degree of c
ompaction.
Temporary and Permanent Slopes
Temporary cut slope stability is a ftinction of many factors, such as the type and consistency of -s o*ils,
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
recominend that temporary cuts in the near -'surface weathered'soil s be no greater than 1 H: IV. Cuts in the
fill should be no greater than L5H: IV. Cuts in the dense to very dense'till may . stand at
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 with. 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 andinclinations conform to local and WISHA/OSHA standards.
Final slope inclinations for structural fill and the cuts in the native soils should be no steeper than 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.
0
Geotechrucal Engineering Repof
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 8
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be f6unded 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 overexcava'ted to expose
suitable bearing soil, and the excavation should be filled with structu . ral 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 for,.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 tr . ansitory wind or seismic loads. Potential
foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than 1 -
inch total an d '/2-inch differential between footings or across a distance of about 30 feet. Higher soil
bearing values may -be ap propriate 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 fbotigs 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 Repolp
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, 2005
CG File No. 1791
Page 9
Lateral Loadg
E
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 fioni movement by stiffness 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*J) 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 in . clude 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 friction 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
density of 225 pcf should be used for passive resistance. The friction value does not incorporate a safety
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 -operated compactors.
Slabs -On -Grade
Slab -on -grade areas should be prepared as recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading
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 GeoteGhnical, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Repqo
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 bui ' Idings. We suggest that the finished ground surface be sloped . at a gradient of
3 percent mininlum 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 fmisbed 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 b.e a nummum 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 fo oting 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 planning and design
of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contra:ctors for their bidding an . d
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Geotechnic'al Engineering Repof
;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 the limitations 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.
000
Comerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Ge6technical Engineering Report
Meadowdale Estates
Edmonds, Washington
January 6, M05
CG File No. 1791
Page 12
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you., If there are any questions, conceming this report or
if we can provide additional services, please call.
Sincerely,.
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
Jeff Laub, LG
Project Geologist
1EXPIRn 081161,4-
Rick B. Powell, PE
Principal -
PAO:JPL:RBP-nt
Three Copies'Submitted
Five Figures
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
cu
CD
LU
W
0
0
0
LL
E
z
T-
r-- P-�.
r-- co
cy) a) C,
j 4 C8.
Go co
Lo G, T.
CNI CNI
0 LL.
CL
8
;9:
d C�
CD
LLF
z
75
c
0 C')
0 L6,
C14
0(3) to
hm I--- P-
0
a) a)
C(D
Lo
0
ul
0
A
Site Plan
N
LEGEND
TP-1
Number and Approximate
Location of Test Pit
0 100 200
Scale 1" = 100'
Reference: Site Plan based on scanned site plan by CHS Engineering, dated 09/2003.
Cornerstone Phone:.(425) 844-1977 RH Hoover - Meadowdale Estates
Fax: (425) 844-1987
Geotechnical, Inc.
17625-130'th Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA - . 98072 File NuMber 1791 Figure 2
Unified Soil Classification System
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUP
GROUPNAME
SYMBOL
COARSE-
GRAVEL
CLEAN GRAVEL
GW
WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
GRAVEL
SOILS
RETAINED ON NO. 4
SIEVE
WITH FINES
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
MORETHAN50%
SAND
CLEAN SAND
SW
RETAINED. ON
number 200 SIEVE
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SP
POORLY -GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50% OF
COARSE FRACTION
SAND
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
WTH FINES
SM
SILTY SAND
sc
CLAYEY SAND
SILT AND CLAY
INORGANIC
ML
SILT
FINE -
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
LESS THAN 50%
CL
CLAY
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
MORE THAN 50%
PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE
SILTAND 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 examinabon 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) 844-1977
Unified Soil Classification System
Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425) 844-1987
1
17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 Woodinville, WA* 98072
Figure 3
1
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 12128/04
CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC.
FILE NO 1791
FIGURE 5
0
Cornerstone.
1 .0 Geotechnical, Inc..
May 16, 2005
Ms. Cathy Patterson
Hoover Premier Homes
16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #108
Mill Creek, WA 98012
Rockery Design Review Letter
Meadowdale Estates - Lot 8
Edmonds, Washington
CG File No. 1791
Dear Ms. Patterson:
17625-130th Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 98072
Phone: 425-844-1977
Fax: 425-844-1987
STREET FILE
This letter presents our review of the proposed rockery design located on Lot 8 at the
Meadowdale Estates development at 6880 — 172 nd Street SW, in Edmonds, Washington. We have
previously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the site, dated January 6, 2005. For
our use in prepanng this letter, we have been provided with a copy of the Lot 8 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 8 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 coring this slope is dense glacial till.
The provided site plan shows several low rockeries surrounding the planned residence ranging up
to 4.2 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
planned rockery system at Lot 8.
Rockery Review Letter
Meadowdale Estates — Lot 8
May 16,2005
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
observations, 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 limitations 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.
Sincerely,
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
L:: /V�
Jeff Laub, G /
Project Geologist
. 0
VWV S
]EXPIRES 081161de-
Rick B. Powell, PE
President
JPL:RBP:nt
One Copy Submitted
Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc.
() f E.Dio,_
4
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS- BUILT
JADDRESS
17117 69TH PL W
CONTRACTOR
RH HOOVER INC.
DATE DRAWN
10/14/05 IBY 1. ABILA
HOMEOWNER
HOOVER PREMIER HOMES
TSCALE
I NTS
WATERLINE
NO, 2005-0596
L
EXYISE TAx
REQ )(RLcD
......MWkDevelopment, LLC 200502170454 9 PGS; FEB 17 2005
....473.1 12th Avenue N.E 02-17-2005 03:19pm $27.00
05 SNOHOMISH COUNTy. WASHINGTON
-WA 981
596 DANTINI
Stbvwffitle CoV has placed this document of
d
as 4 customer courtesy. and accepts no
or validity of the document
OF EASEMENT FOR DRIVEWAYS
Grantor MMR 1pevelopment LLC, a Washington corporation
Grantee
jnent,.LLC, a Washington corporation
Legal Descripton, 73 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 of Steinman's Meadowdale
plat recorded under Recording Number
2004-10085349,-.fecords of Snohomish County, Washington (the
Assessoes Tax Parcel 113ft ...----`a1-0173�-&0005 00 R E C E I VF: y—,1
-`01.01 �3 000006 00
..210173 000W-00
MAY 1 7
010173 006004 bo
010173--OOQ.009 06 PERIkIlT
0101t3 00001b 00
01�173:'bl)Wil 00
010'173*0W0jZ'00
This Declaration of Easeylent for DrWewan (this 'Easernent:7) is made this
dayofFekr,,,4xj , 20_e>l_.,.by the aLboy6 mentibned Grantor/Grantee, as the
owner of the property descnbed above (the 14ois'7.*
RECITALS
A Grantor/Grantee is the owner of Lotd--, 5, 5;*7 O'g-10, 11 and 12 of
Steinman's Meadowdale Est3tes,per plat recorded 6nde� R�&
.dihg Number
200410085349, Records of Snohomish County, Washingion.(tfie.-1'lJatsj.
6i*-,mll be served
S Grantor/Grantee is constructing homes on the Lots-li�hi*
by a common driveway, as shown an the drawings attachied.tf�r,6 astxhibits A, B,
C and D (the "Driveways").
OPY
CITY C
Grantor/Grantee desires to create easements over the Lots for the
Owners") of the Lots
J01tivey0bys for the benefit of itself and the future owners (the
apd��- provide for the common maintenance of the Driveways.
ration,
In borisideration of the premises and other good and valuable conside
the ieiadi�ptind--g6ffkAency of which are hereby acknowledged, Grantor and Grantee
h&qpy__jj��e and, grant as follows -
Grantor declares and grants to the Owners of the
M nt urposes of ingress and egress for the
Lots ah--L-aspririent dv 'A Driveways for p
Lots
2. U of "kasement The Owners of the Lots shall not park motor
_ se - —
vehicles in th Air veways dr u the Driveways in a manner that would restrict the
e. rr se
access of any D*er..t6 the qwners Lot
h ai ena .----Wb--`bwners shall share equally in the cost of
3. kkR*A *� of one share for
maintenance, repair-antl-repi*inent of the Driveways on the basis
each Lot owned.
done under this
4 Decisions A469io with --.respect to work to be
Easement shall 6emade;bY-Wjon#Y"yot6 qf -the Owners of the Lots on the basis of
one vote for each Lot owneiO-'
nt to have
h decision js,*Made under this Easeme
5. Pffleent In the 16vent'. r sW . 'the Owners share of costs upon
work done on the Driveway, eai:K*Owne . pa '
not less than 15 days' notice from another.-Owner-lat--payment is due Payment may
be required in advance of the work "jng done'."
6. Lien. Each Owner of a�tot%'sh6ll haie a lien upon each other Lot for
that Lots share of the cost of any work;-4jone-heir.�er, plus interest -and attorneys
fees in the event of default, which lien mij . beF 10Md in the same manner as a
matenalman's lien is foreclosed.
7. Duration. 'Tbe rights granted h9're_!n.j6*-NF'#ff0Ctive as of the date of
execution hereof and shall be perpetual.
8. 1041mni . Grantee agrees to indeM:nh--anit--hWd Grantor harmless
A
from any loss or damage ansing out of Grantee's us;b-�iU*.0livei�ay.
..th
9 Bir4tq-9#29. The benefits and bun:tbnsi',. , m -Easement are
appurtenant to and shall run with the Lots, shall be bind upon- . -transferees or
successors in interest or assigns of the Grantee and Grant * r for" and
shall not be extinguished by merger of title or transfer of anyN, nTAhel-ots.
10 AttoMys _fees. In the event it becomes neces6aFy"'for-.611y Oivner to
defend or institute legal proceedings as a result of the failure 6f.xrfq1h6r OWner to
krt
comply with the terms of the Easement. the substantially previlling P; *-in-such
- ilin
ri�- ri� i g-qaE.ty
litigation shall be enbtled to be reimbursed by the substantially no p ....va
2
..,for all:costs incurred or expended in connection therewith including, but not limited to,
court costs.
rdasohable attorney's fees (including appellate fees) and
Enforcement In the event of a breach of any provision of this
faserffdrit.the parties shall be entitled to any and all remedies available at law or in
::,eqUV--ificWmg';-btjt not limited to, the equitable remedies of specific performance or
Tpandqt*-�br pi�q�lpitory injunction issued by a court of appropriate jurisdiction
'rhe . n . dm#nts. Any addition, variation, or modification to this Easement
no6e
shall T!96e. iRiv--d-urgm in writing and signed by each of the Owners of the Lots.
13 .---ADD66ablilaw. This Easement and the performance thereof shall be
governed,*,- irdetpret6cL..-ponstrued, and regulated by the , laws of the State of
Washington":
14 Ndticyi An
y nok& required or permitted to be served upon a party
hereto shall be in writiv)g deemed to have been served when delivered in
person to the pb�-.6rffiaktied by certified mail,. postage prepaid, return receipt
requested, addresse.d4o th6 parly. at the address of the party's property described
herein or to such othiEkr.,addre4�,as iL.party shall by notice give to the other party
DATED as of the 'daj. igir fiftt"'a'Dove written.
-WR "DEVELOPMENT$
....M LLC, a Washington
GRANTOR:
cotporation
its
GRANTEE: MMR'-VI�k-16P.MENT, LLC, a Washington
corporation
Its jol'? M A YP
3
STATIE OF WASHINGTON)
)SS.
e-0UQ*y*OF KING
-'. cey f -.1 know or have satisfactory evidence that Ron Steinman is the
'.that d person
oprs'-6n wtio"appoat" before me, and said person acknowledged that sai
signed'Ibig'instrWiint on oath stated that said person was authorized to , execute the
;��dged it as the --,6A&2jffArM
instruffient..Md'idin � 26W&A / zZe
of MMR.-0�vpI6pmej%-,LLC, a Washingt6in- —corp6rabon, to be the tree and voluntary
act of 'S* uch -6oj��of-the uses and purposes mentioned in the instrument.
Di �Lsdjhfi_ day of February, 2005
SIGN of Nota
(Sign
% Tar A?Xkez g4c
ta
A (Legibly Print or Stamp Name of Nd ry)
V% 0
to 6 't� p. Wary P.yblic in and for the State of Washington,
-'_Rebidm6
4 VIAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON)
ss.
COUNTY OF KING
I certify that I know or have _'satidactiYry evidence that Ron Steinman is the
person who appeared before me, and. said po acknowledged that said � person
signed this instrument on oath stated ffiatsa1a-,person--#as authorized to execute the
instrument and acknowledged it as the . / &IAAW---
of MMR Development, LLC, a Washington corpo
.Mon*, to be the free and voluntary
act of such corporation for the uses and purposes Mortbem,4 in the instrument
Dated this
day of February, 2005
A E L C'N
(SignatufU ot.MV)..-_.
%
_4M!,%z;f Ndt�ry)
(Legibly Print or Sta4
Notary Public in and for the�Aa
J 4zo W �Mar;hi.ngton,
z r Residing
0 N
'rP'iVAS1%
My appointment expires
4
0 40 80
40 30 20 1
SCALE IN FEET
IN
LOT 5
610173 000005 001
w"
69TH PL-1-
71.00.
L6
010173 OOOOQ.&--.00
D DRIVEWAY
ENT
DATE 02/07/05
12wanAmmmoswren" STEINMAN'S MEADOWDALt- Ei"STATES
efu~ "54 oplos'"m
SHARED DRIVEWAY EA6ELTNTS::
CMSEARGOAMOLLC EXHIBIT A
0 ft
0 40 so
SCALE IN FEET
-H PL W
LOT 8
P1 0173 000008 001
_j
DATE 02/07/05
jMJ'&ft4MRGW AMM
OULEMM rVA SXMZW
000faviam uc nj tim mj�� roww* air imw
SHARED D VEWAY
T
.,...--i,,OT- 7
I MOM OID0007 00
STEINMAN'S MEADOWDj
SHARED DRIVEWAY E
. EXHIBIT B
.--4-:%30 io 0 40 so
1 1
SCALE IN FEET
69TH PL W
SHARED DRI AY
IV)
9
I LOT 10 �-'01017,3 Q6OD09
T0173 000010 00 +
L
DATE 02/07/05
STEINMAWS MEADOWDALU J�STMt-0
Aw Tw SUM got %
GWOW WA §S0V$.W0 SHARED DRIVEWAY EASWEI4Tb
ra I.U* &van ow 1420 &VVm
awaimmm.ac I EXHIBIT C
0 40 80
.416'30 20
SCALE IN FEET
-69TH PL W
cn
LOT,12
ql 0173
0OW1 2
00
L
DATE 02/07/05
SHARED DRIVEWAY
EASEMENT
rn
in
LQT 1.$
::b.1.pl!3.::OOWll 0
fzwm-mpmuo A . " toy STEINMAN'S MEADOWDi
Nual"N " 2" SHARED DRIVEWAY E
assampiffiwac I EXHIBIT D
OA
...... ... ...
16
r
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 STH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220
ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT
Addendum to (check appropriate box) EIDNS 11 EIS El Other MDNS
Description of current proposal: Lot grading for construction of new single-family residences. Total gradi
for the olat (PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93) was 17.500 cubic vards of cut. Total aradina for new sinale-famil
residences is estimated at 17,301 cubic yards of cut. Total grading for the Meadowdale Estates pro*ect is
estimated at 34,801 cubic yards. Lot _grading estimate breakdown: Lot 1: 1,000: Lot 3: 1,000: Lot 4: 1,000:
Lot 5: 114* Lot 6: 387: Lot 7: 1,900,�,Ibt,8: 2 300'� Lot 9: 2,400: Lot 10: 2,4000 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 & 13-
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
residences. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is seen as addressing all the pertinent
environmental impacts on the site. No significant and adverse impacts from the prodect are anticipated
that can't be addressed with the Cily's current regulations.
Name of agency making addendum: Ci!y of Edmonds
Contact person, if other than
responsible official: Gina Coccia, Planner Phone: 425.771.0220
Responsible official: Rob Chave
Position/'Fitle:- Planning Manager —Phone: 425.771.0220
Address: 121 5 th Ave. K Eftnads, WA. 9802 - 0
Date: July 14, 2005 -Signature:
WAC (4/15/98) L:\TE?H�Gina\SEPA—Addendum-Hoovcr.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 Y/o r
Project Planner
Date: JANUARY 30,2003
File: PRD-200 2-40 / P-2002-93
Hearing Date, Time, and Place:
A 12-lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential
Development (PRD)
February 6h 2003, At 9:30 AM5
3rd Floor Meeting Room
Edmonds City Hall
121 5th Avenue North
Applicant: Merle Stelm-nan, Sr., represented by CHS Engineers
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Page
1.
INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................. 2
A. Application ........................................................................................................................................
2
B. Decision ............................................................................................................................................
2
fl.
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 ............................................................. I ............................................
6
F. Compliance with 20.75 Subdivisions .................................................................................................
8
M.
RECONSIDERATIONS .................................................. ; .........................................
I .......... 9
A. Request for Reconsideration .......................................................................
.................................... 9
B. Appeals .............................................................................................................................................
9
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals ......................................... ..........................................
9
IV.
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR ..................................................................................
9
V.
APPENDICES ...............................................................
.............. 9
VI.
PARTIES OF RECORD ....................... .........................................................................
... 10
PRD-02-401-1E report.doc / January 30, 2003/ Staff Report
'adowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
FAiele No. PRD-200240 & P-2002-93
Page 2 of 10
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applicant: 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-Fan-tily 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 firial decision.
5. Maior 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, Envirom-nental Review (SEPA).
d. Compliance with ECDC Section 20.15B, 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:
I 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:
,,,q)—The applicant shall comply with the Environmental Determination dated 12/20/02 (s
b) S��mit a letter from the Department of Fish and Wildlife to comply with the
_ffiivironmental Determination. Refer to Attachment 10.
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.
f) 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
Meadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
File 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 information:
(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 information, 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
Pern-iit" on Attachment 3.
11. - FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site. Description
Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
A. Size: The subject property is roughly rectangular, approximately 640 feet deep. The property
has approximately 340 feet of frontage along 172 nd St SW. The width exten ds to
approximately 440 feet wide approximately 200 feet from 172 d . 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.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
A. Surrounding 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
W-adowdate Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
File No. PRD-200240 & P-2002-93
Page 4 of 10
B. L Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings,
adding to the community identity and desirability.
B.3 - Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B. 4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever
it is economicallyfeasible.
B.5. Protect residential areasfrom incompatible land uses through the careful
control ofother 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.5A Private property must beprotectedfrom adverse environmental
impacts ofilevelopment 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 of housing 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. Considerplanned residential development
solutionsfor residential subdivisions.
C.l.a Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant
benifitsfor 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.I. Grading and Filling.
C.I.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
CIA Grading shall notjeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an
adjacent property.
C. I.c. Only minimal amounts ofcut 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.
I CIA 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
Meadowdale Estates 12-lot P1aUPRD
File No. PRD-2002-40 & 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.
C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff
at predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during
construction.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce
erosion and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep rooted vegetation and mulch, or
other materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage 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 full
potential while at the same time protecting natural features and taking significant steps to ensure its
compatibility with the neighborhood.
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 Deterritination 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:
I Critical Areas Review number: CA-2001-43 (see Attachment 9
2. 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. Jn reviewing the topographic map, none of the slopes, on the property- meet. the,
�ECDC 20.15-B'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—,
r cinthe subject -property are as -steep as 401/o.-
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Hearing Examiner
0
Weadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
File No. PRD-200240 & 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 feet away from the drainage facilities. See Attachment 11.
The study requirement also requires that the applicant verify any wildlife habitat requirements with
the state Departm ' ent 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.
4. Conditions Required for Critical Areas Compliance: The following should be done to
ensure compliance with ECDC chapter 20.1513 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, PR.D's
1. Architectural Design Board review of the PRD
A. The ADB reviewed the proposed project on December 180', 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 THROUGH12. -
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
nurnber. 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 sietbacks
between the proposed buildings and their proposed street will be as follows:'Street ' ,
�setbacks — 25 feet, Side setbacks — 10 feet, and Rear setbacks — 20 f66t. Lots I and 2
have rear setbacks of 25 feet, in order to meet underlying zoning requirements.
1/31/2003/ Staff Report to Heating Examiner
0
Meadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat[PRD
File No. PRD-200240 & 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�'l 00--
feet�j
B. Conclusion: All of the proposed modifications are pern-tissible if the modification
approval criteria are met.
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 172nd 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.
I
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 2035.050
A. A PRD must demonstrate that it meets the following five Decision Criteria:
1.) Design Criteria: 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
Weadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
rile No. PRD-2002-40 & 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.
F. Compliance with 20.75 Subdivisions
Subdivision Review Criteria
A. Environmental Resources
1.) The ADB's recommended condition of approval regarding tree retention, and the open
space/buffer 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 doesn't 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: 25'(n-iinirnurn 25'required).
Setback from the west propelly line, lots I and 2: 25' (minimum 25' required).
Setback from the west prope!1y line, lots, 3, 4, and 5: 120+' (min. 25'required)
Setback from the north property line: 50+' (minimum 25' required)
Setback from east propei1y line: minimum 70+' (minimum 25' required)
4.) CornerLots: 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
Meadowdale Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
File No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
Page 9 of 10
2. Compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
A.. Staff finds this project to cornply 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 infori-nation.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20. 100.010.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 findings 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 inwhich 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 Hearing Examiner
" -adowdate Estates 12-lot Plat/PRD
Fiele No. PRD-2002-40 & P-2002-93
I 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 Heating Examiner
Nritten dimensions on this drov4lng 5holl have precedence over
scoled dimensions. r-ontor-tor 5holl verify oil dimensions,
conditions, etc., pertoining to the Pqork before- proceeding.
The 0"ner must be notified of ony varfotlon5 from the
dimensions ond/or conditions sho"In on these drovq1nq5. ^ny
such vorlotion sholl be- resolved by the Ovqner prior to
proceedIng v4lth the v4ork, or the r-ontroator 5holl occept
full responsibility for the cost to rectify some.
L.07 �5
ADDRE55
PARC,EL NUMBER
LOT AREA:
1-711-7 6c1th PI. N
EDMONDS, NA.
12,125 SGUARE FEET
LE62AL DESGRIFTION
LOT(S) 126, MEADONDALE E3EAGH, AGGORDIN6 TO THE FLAT THEREOF
RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF FLATS, PA6E(S) 50, REGORDS OF
5NOHOM15H COUNTY, NA5HINOTON;
EXGEFT THE EAST 200 FEET THEREOF;
AND EXGEPT THE SOUTH 205 FEET OF THE NEST 100 FEET THEREOF;
AND EXGEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF SAID LOT 126 CONVEYED TO
THE GITY OF EDMONDS FOP, ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED UNDER
REGORDIN6 NUMBER 23-75256.
51TUATE IN THE GOUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF NA5HIN67TON.
VERTIGAL DATUM:
BENGHMARK (BM):
6RAPIN6 PLAN:
NAP 83/cfl PEP, RECORDED
SURVEY #20050514500-7
RIM OF SANITARY SENER MANHOLE
11G11, ELEVATION 505.15'PER
EN16INEERIN6 PRANIN65.
GUT: 62cf GU. YDS- FOUNDATION EXCAVATION
FILL: 62ci GU. YDS. LOTS 3, 4
BALANGED ON SITE.
AVERA&E LOT SLOPE
EAST TO NEST 422, - 3b&,= 56'
36 VERTIGAL FEET
151 HORIZONTAL FEET
HE16HT GALGULATION - LOT b
A=
5c1ci.5'
B=
40-7A'
15clI.5/4= 5c[-7.b8'
AVERA(3E ORIC71NAL ORADE 5cfl.bb'
MAXIMUM BUILDINO HEI&HT 422.bb' (25)
AGTUAL BUILDINO HE16HT 422.50'
MAXIMUM OARACvE FLR. ELEV. 3b-7.55'
L.07 45
1:2,1:25 Sf=.
....................... . ..... ------
N (1 0 1 5 11 E
-------------
N 77-
4 F414
14
PROPOSED ROCXER)" 412
,H HALL
b'-O" H16H MAX. EAC
REFER TO GIT"r OF EDMONDS
STANDARD: 201 BSE3L,,,, 41b,
"ROGKERY DETAIL" U)
"TIERED ROGKERIES DETAIL" Llfr-
0 406
t- 411 _I(N
404.8
x
401.0 404 CD 41 U)
X1,
Lf)
4
0 7 -15-0 55 -0'.
MAIN FLR. ca 5clb.o' 400
0
GARA6E FLR. @ 5�5b.O'
'C'ON�,. PATIO 4
�S)
N,
E38-1.5
<
170
4
4 RES I 6IEN�E:
F-
2 (6ARAC-E,,,.UNDER,� 4 0.1 4
-7A4�--FLR. Z_-3q-7\5`�\ 1 5
6ARA-(5F.FLR. (9) �N,5-7.50
_1 S --\ \ 1 4
Q I
AOCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE
4" PVC, T16ATLINE
`�ATERIAL
25.5% SLOPE SDR 35 TO STORM 5YSTEM
SCH 40 156 !�F,\
N-12
F81 0 HANCOR
TYFDE I GE3. 5 DRIVENA
TOP= 5b(9.5 q62 SF
0
)00
100
TEMPORARY CONST TION 0 0.0
ENTRANCE IRED 0*'//) 00,600
'1 .00 0 00000 0
00
0 000 00
0 O'oo- '0 0 0
0 0
GONSTRUGTION ENTRANGE PEP, 00 000 000
00 000 00 0.0 0
GITY STD. DETAIL 0 00
LOT GOVERA6E:
(PROPOSED)
RE51DENGE/67ARAOE 1 b20 50UARE FEET
GOV. AREAS 2(91 SOUARE FEET
TOTAL 2,Obl SOUARE FEET (1-1.2%)
55% MAXIMUM
LOT GOVERA6E
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
(PROPOSED)
RESIDENGE
(NI OVERAHN65)
DRIVE, NALK 4 PATIO
2221 SGUARE FEET
1(911 SGUARE FEET
TOTAL 3,,552 SGUARE FEET (31.6%)
REFERENGES
REGORD OF SURVEY OF TH15
PROPERTY BY GHS ENOINERS, ING.,
UNDER REGORPINO NO. 20050514500-7,
SNOHOMISH GOUNTY, NASHINOTON
E�<:�:)TTO�� OF LOV"�4F-F,'
FOOT1Nr-:;, (��) 5e55-5'
SEE- SH7. S2
B M
SMH G
IS
5a51.151
LL
up
35-4 SF
ENI
105
2 E35
5 B5 <
6" PV`G T16HTLINE
TO STORM SY5TEM
0 C) wATER & SEWER Lf)
C)- 0/ D.
NSPECTIO14S RECIr
0
N02015'05"E 62.(55 sAN,,ITA
STUB,,
LE6END:
EX15TIN6 6RAPE
PROP05ED 6RADE
ORI61NAL 62RAPE "
* FOR HE16HT GALGULATION
ZoneEU-01-- DCome�(VOR
Setbacks Required Aci
9tretel:"Front (W).- - 100 ---5
Sides(lq/,5)—AQI I V
Rear (S)
Other
Height 1-12--' Jti-
L 0 7 :::;[
MAIN FLR. @) 5cici.O'
G,ARAOE FLR. g 5�5q.O
400
()WNIER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
LL
-,*j.0 DAMAGE
390 MAINTAIN PLAT INSTALLED ER
SILT FENGE PER
GIT"r STD. DETAIL
J
<1 STORM SHORT FLAT
EROSION GONTROL
MEASURES TO
BE MAINTAINED.
C, B C2
,APP.R0,VE0 9Y PLANNING
4W!��+- �Vr
APPROVED� AS NOTED
B NEERINCL
Date: —
I tzTID
e I 7r= FL -AN L.07 a
SEE ISSENERAL NOTES 5CALE=-- 1"
012 5 10 15 25
Li I
RIGHT-0177-WAY COINSTRUCTION PERMIT
AND INSPECTION REQUIRED
I
RESL
JUL 05 2
BUILDING DEPAI
CITY OF EDIW
I
2512 --
REOISTE,
A I I
GAR T1- S NASH
STATE OF WASHINGTON
JU 13mo
0 --D
z j 0
0a
"
3� =,
z
C)
0
U)
co
z
y
T
ul lu
—N!�
fj so
M
0
Q1 M
T
>
j')
CJ
j
T
L
0-
date: 5/12/05
permit:
revisions:
(9/25/05 PLANNING7
drovqn by: RO
chell by:
!F:;, H E-= I= -F
F=
PUEBLO / PNO / BUILDER5
HOOVER PREMIER HOME5
HEADONDALE / LOT 8
o5 - cl, �
1-7 11
RESUB
JUL 05 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
7y 1
Cl' OF EDMONDS