The URL can be used to link to this page

17118 69TH PL W.PDF111111111111 5313 17118 69TH PL W ADDRESS: TAX ACCOUNTIPARCEL NUMBER: BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): Zak,2& - 014,2 9 COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS:0/_q�3 —DETERMINATION: n Conditional Waiver )qStudy Required []Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DA EASEMENT(S)RECORDED PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILET-02-13 LOT: �] BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: �Ibl 0 g) 0 LATEMP�Mrs\Forrns\Street File Checklist.doc _W NO AVL4 ptffvvj,+ plab 1,>e� oLpplfed -tt?r or qpprvvcot (we,+ &4r 6hoL.,,rn down sf-al,#-5 Gi �U"P/a^ftlm 0wo 0,45C4 A01 altr -tv -s ............. . . . .... ...... .......... ................... . '�ILT FFtjC_F PFP . ....... C,ITY STD. DETAII 104 AV/pltu 4Ilje"e4F:ww 03 "A" At*gyn *r UW 4" PVG TICHTLINE P14009"? G44i""df7* !� 0�-41' TO STORM SYSTEM PY" flAIW.R,@ 31AAP Lu uJ 115.04 or 1. F,� ......... . .......... ..... ... . . ........ C) U) 3 5 6 z one P P-D 1,11 �ierNO Flu ND cn STOR 80 R 3 6' 0 < U) Q (90 --Setbacks Required Actual a U.J 0 SCH 40 cq, _. I -I(Ncn a Q1 3�17511 — Front 6 Ic 'DO I- < . , F4, 12,,, I = U- 5C-4 ID 1-3-57 < 0 cc X 71 Sides W 0 -Mear W lAp cc z Gthep 6 1 uj Cn LU 3_7 -7 (3 ROOF 0 a: 0 OVERt�LN6 Height uj V — UV6 �5 6 P.. E�UMP_QUT c/) _j 0 LONER LE\/EL 1-11, - '7, 0 Ln Lu Cc Lu ca ..... . ...... 5E EJE R PUMP 5A51N D'AW Ztv" FORM '5 5PEGS. a: PER 0 563 TOP E 0.0, 2 INSPOTIONS. REQU—IRED- pplopOSEv-, 0 Z FZE5IDBNcr=_ r _3 -7 F F, f -1 A IT F _= 3 -`EET FILE 7 m 1 2 lz PLAN 4134� ... . . ..... . .. FF. LONER = 3-72.61' STR _74 . . . ..... 1 374 E 78 F.F. 6ARA6E 57C, TRENr.H DRAIN 50 . ..... ....... . SANITARY HA5TE TO STORM DRAIN 5.5. I.E. EJECTOR 5YSTEM NOTE5 = 57cl.84' 75 1, MAIN FLOOR MASTER BATH -,a �', C. ..0 (a0v_. - _j �20 =tl ENTRY Lu AND PbNDER ROOM TO 233 SF. IT,--- > 5150 6PAVITY FEED TO S.S. cl� 352 �) 0 CL 2. MAIN FLR. LAUNDRY d V ALL LONER FLR. TO DRAIN MEL NAL< HAY - - ----- z -582 0 < 14916 SLOPE DN c 0 01: I__ *j < TO EJEGTOP SYSTEM L _1173ci 5F CD cl� 10, POHM E&-fr. Q� w 3, LONE5T FI KTURE ON 3&4 CL < -,;,#1 IVAVY & CD . > LONER FLR. =312.61! S, 354 01, 13,,.o N 02013'03" E 115.00' it C %1VI L OC44 P it C--X- I SANITARY STUB Il '81 _38;,.5 TF40RAR� CONSTRUCTION RESUB -huvr I LIJ /i EN RANCE REQUIKED Art u 110 "llf OCT 12 2005 N-- _7 Qv PhIrlIKIPPRINIAa-, NNIN APPROVED BY-P r-ON5TPUC.TION ENTRANGE PER r D NG DEPARTMENT 13F EDMONDS ITY 5TD. DETAIL A 4glw wo &ITH FL. YN. 55MH "B" -)�q 0 RESUB s,�_ - _55 S 55MH "V i'M RIM = 586.6cf, lq5 LF. lq5 L.F. RIM = 3a5.15' I.E. IN = 3-1-7.5q' L07 -4 S I 7r= PLAN I.E. OUT 5-78.4-7 FEB 0 12006 i3UILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS Nritten dlmon5lonie, on this AIn,@ sholl Incive precedence over 5c(:;fled dimensions- Contc3ctor 5hall verify cill dimensions, c-f>nditl,�>ns, otc-, pertoining to the vqc::,rk before proceeding. The Ov4ner must be notlfle-cl of ony vorlotionr, from the dirnon5kDn5 ondlor conditions 5hovqn on these drovqIng5. Any such shcill be- resolved by the 0"ner prior to pror-eeding vqlth the vqork, or the Contro(:--tor 5holl occept full responsibility for the. cost to rectify 5cime. L. 0 7 .4 ADDRESS PARCEL NUMBER LOT AREA: 1-1110 6cith PI. V4 EDMONDS, NA. 0101-75-000-004-00 11,6-70 SGUARE FEET LE6AL DESCRIPTION LOT(S) 126, MEADONDALE BEACH, AGGORDIN& TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PA&E(S) 3b, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, HASHIN6TON; EXCEPT THE EAST 200 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 205 FEET OF THE kqEST 100 FEET THEREOF; AND EXCEPT THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF SAID LOT 126 CONVEYED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS FOR ROAD PURPOSES BY DEED UNDER REGORDIN6 NUMBER 25-1525b. SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF V4A5HIN6TON. VERTICAL DATUM: -DR1Rm BENGHMAR< (BM) NAD b5lcil PER RECORDED SURVEY #20050514500-7 RIM OF SANITARY SEVqER MANHOLE 'G", ELEVATION 3b5.15- PEP, ENIGINEERING DRANINGS. 6RADINO PLAN: CUT: 613 GU. YDS. FILL: 1316 CU. YPS. BALANCED ON SITE. AVtK/\C7f- I ()I ---)L-ut-r- EAST TO HEIR 58)6- 556'=: 30. 50 VERTIGAL FEET �03 LINEAR FEET HE16HT GALG-ULATION- LOT 4 - N/ VARIANGE A= 311.0' E3= 563.q' cl= 5bo-o' D= 353.1' 14qbff14= 3-741' AVERA6E OR16INAL 6RADE MAXIMUM BUILDIN6 HE16HT ACTUAL BUILDINO HE16HT MAXIMUM MAIN FLR. ELEV. = 2q.1% SLOPE = 5-74.-7' = 400.06' (25.5b')* 582 . 6q'* *NOTE: PER APPROVED VARIANCE, ACTUAL FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION NILL BE DETERMINED BY 14% MAX. DRIVENAY SLOPE. GOVERAOE: .LOT (PROPOSED) RESIDENCE 2,4qb SGUARE FEET &ARA&E -701 SOUARE FEET GOV. AREAS 235 5GUARE FEET' DEGK 255 SGUARE FEET 55MH "E311 0<:�J— RIM = 5bb.(bql I.E. IN = 3-7-15ci TOTAL 5,6GI5 SOUARE FEET (51.6%) 35% MAXIMUM LOT GOVERA&E IMPERVIOUS AREAS (PROPOSED) RESIDENGE (H/ OVERAHN65) DRIVE, NALK 4 DEGK 4,051 5OUARE FEET 1,221 SGUARE FEET TOTAL 5,255 SOUARE FEET (45.1%) REFER] REGOF- PROPE UNDER SNOHC January 6, 2005 Ms. Cathy Patterson Hoover Premier Homes 16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #108 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Geotechnical Engineering Report Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington CG File No. 1791 Dear Ms. Patterson: 17625-13011 Ave. NE, C1 02, Woodinville, WA 98072 Phone: 425-844-1977 Fax: 425-844-1987 S I" 0 KET FILE 0 rk RECEIVED AUG 16 2005 PERMIT COUNTER 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 f evaluate the subsurface conditions of your lots and provi oundation.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 fee t east to west. The development consists of a total of 12 lots. We understand that you intend to construct Geotechnical Engineering Report 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 backboe-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 (69h 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. Generally, the ground surface slopes downward towards the west at approximately 3 Horizontal to I Vertical (3H: IV). An existing residence borders the southwestem comer of the site and 172 nd Street SW bordffs 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 Rf 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. Sol] 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 (Prelimina!y Surficial Geologic Mqp of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Ouadrangles., 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 rMixture of sand, slit, 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 p*ermeability. Alluvial sand and gravel deposited by glacial melt water dining 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. '17he 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. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2.' 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 Report -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 1 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 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 L0 foot. We considerAhis 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 Sol] Survey of Snoborru*sb County Area Wasbmigton by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. Tbe 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 till, which is generally in agreement with the soils encountered in our site explorations. Ile erosion hazard for the soil is listed as being slight for slopes less than 8 percent. Ile 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 (BMPs) and applicable codessb ould be f6ilowed 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 Repl®rt 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 (IBC). Site conditions best fit the IBC definition for Site Class C ("Very 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 b y 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 underlyirig 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 surrimer 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 R#rt ;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. 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 -finer 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. Engineering RePt 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 compacitable 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. Temporary 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 soil s be no g*reater than I H: IV. Cuts in the fill should be no greater than I.5H: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 and inclinations 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:lV. 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. ne 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 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 w ith structural fill, or the footing may be ov . erpoured 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 transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than 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 so]] 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. 0 -Geotechmcal En neeriniz 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-tbousandib of the height of the wall are in an "active" condition. Walls restrained from 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 poundsper 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 (pcf) 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. T'he 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 ffiction 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, band -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-drammig coarse, sand or pea gravel for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barriier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break. Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. -Geotechnical Engineering Repoo 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 minimum 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-o n-grade floors where moisture control is important, the slab should be a minimum of I foot above surrounding grades. Where used, footing drains should consist of 4-incb-diameter, perforated PVC pipe that is surrounded by free -draining material, such as pea gravel. Footing drains should discharge into tiglitlines 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 planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding and Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Re* 'Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page .11 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, scliedule 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. Memo Cornerstone' Geotechnical, Inc. Geotechnical Engineering Ref PO Meadowdale Estates Edmonds, Washington January 6, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 12 0 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 1EXP11tES 081161,94� Rick B. Powell, PE Principal PAO:JPL:RBP:nt Three Copies Submitted Five figures Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. . r� --- -z'- WIV, 'elf fo, a M ti -g- --;j gnE- nm� , "a-Ote, FORM, am Project , W—MA Site 'M SIMI 'A . ry � VE", MIR ap UQ— -tin, 1, WIN 101M. � M P', Own 0- ij��M A A ]� I Mr 0 �:.M MR12; MtU WE, NZ A, .1-Uq Mi M M WO Apr M-EM, - RE ON �IIAAW IBM 11:4 RH Hoover - Meado.wdale Estates File Number 1791 lip Site Plan ---I 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 ia Geotechnical, Inc. Fax: (425).844-1 . 987 File Number Figure 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA 98072 1791 1 2 71 a Unified Soil Class ification'Syste m MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP SYMBOL GROUPNAME COARSE- GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL_ GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION GRAVEL WITH FINES GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS RETAINED ON NO. 4 SIEVE 'GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE THAN 50% RETAINED ON number 200 SIEVE SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SID POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE THAN 50% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE SAND WITH FINES SM SILTY SAND sc CLAYEY SAND F1 NE - SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED LIQUID LIMIT LESS THAN 50% SOILS ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SI LT, ORGANIC CLAY MORETHAN50% PASSES NO. 200 SIEVE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICIT'� ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY UQUID 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 ASTM 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 17625-130th Ave NE, C-102 - Woodinville, WA* 98072 Figure 3 DEPTH LOG OF EXPLoRATION 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?) SAMPLESWERE 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 12/2a/04 TEST PIT TWO 0.0-1.0 sm DARK BROWN TO BLACK SILTY SAND WITH GRAVEL (LOOSE, WET) (TOPSOILJDUFF) 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 12128/04 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 _�_ 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 1212k4 FILE NO 1791 1 FIGURE 4 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 NOTENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 1.5 FEET ON 12/28ID4 CORNERSTONE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. FILE NO 1791 FIGURE 5 Ce r.n.-. e rsal.ne.... Geotechnical Inc. August 16, 2005 Ms. Cathy Patterson Hoover Prerru*er Homes 16300 Mill Creek Boulevard, #108 Mill Creek, WA 98012 Rockery Design Review Letter Meadowdale Estates - Lot 4 Edmonds, Washington CG File No. 1791 Dear Ms. Patterson: IN 17625-1301h Ave. NE, C102, Woodinville, WA 9BD72 Phone; 425-844-1977 Fax: 425-944-1987 RECEIVED AUG 2.2 2005 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS L FILE This letter presents our review of the proposed rockery design located on Lot 4 at the Meadowdale Estates development at 6880 — 172d Street SW, in Edmonds, Washington. We have previously prepared a Geotechnical Engineering Report for the site, dated Jarivary 6, 2005. For our use in preparing this letter, we have been provided with a copy of the Lot 4 site plan that shows the locati ons and elevations of the proposed rockeries, and the City of Edmond's handout #B63 regarding rockeries. This handout includes the City of Edmond's detai I sheets for single and tiered rockeries. Lot 4 is located along the west side of the Meadowdale Estates plat. The lot generally slopes down from the roadway to the west, toward the stormwatcr dctcntiorn vault. Based on our previous explorations, we exp ect that the material underlying this lot to be fill and. recessional outwash. The provided site plan shows several low rockeries surrounding the planned residence ranging up to 4.0 feet in height. We have reviewed the provided Rockery Detail and Tiered Rockeries Detail, dated April 1, 200 3 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 by the City of Edmonds -should be a suitable design for the planned rockery system at Lot 4. Au-,.22. 2M 9:38AM Hoover Pr.emier Homes 0 N o, 11-6 3 F - �/J 0 Rockery Review Letter Meadowdale Estates — Lot 4 August 16, 2005 CG File No. 1791 Page 2 However, given the variable subsurface conditions encountered during our explorations, including the presence of fill material, 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 change s, should the conditions revealed during the woTk-differ from those anticipated. As. part of our services, we would also evaluate whether or not earthwork activities comply writh 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 letter 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. V. fit EXPIRES 08/16bZ Rick B. Powell, PE President JPL:RBP:nt One Copy Submitted Cornerstone Geotechnical, Inc. RECEJV ED 0 1'6 2001 Critical Areas Checklist CA File.No: Ot .e Inf6flMTi6"V&/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation) A. Site Address/ Location: 68glp 1-7.oild jQW_ Rd-ondql Idwzh RECEIVIrr) 2. Property.Tax Account Number oo-si--ii oom6oi 4 UG 1 9 mar. M 4. 5. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 6 acres is this site currently developei If yes; how is site developed? 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 standmig water: no Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? no 8. Site is in the floodway nr% floodplain nn 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 — y e s meadow ;shrubs mixed urban landscaped Oawnshrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: no 3C 1*4 L_ G:�Share\Library\Planning\Forms\Public Handoutsk Critical Areas Checklist Doc/1 -16-2001 . City of Edmonds Critical Areas.Determination Applicant: Merle Steinman Sr. & Determination CA-01-43 Associates Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 1 6880172 "d Street SW Property Tax Acet #: 1 5131000 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 20.1513 by completing a Critical Areas Study consisting of the following: 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 SO - foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15-foot building setback is required from the 50-foot buffer. For development of any kind which, is proposed within the critical area, 50-foot buffer or 15-foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: For development proposals which will occur within the 50-foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50-foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed -geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffersetback, 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 deten-nine 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.170A 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 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 Signat-tire Date Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on the City of Edmonds website at www.cLedmonds.wa'.11s. 2 Ll 10 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 ___ -EM MM RECEIVED AUG 16 2005 PERMIT COUNTER ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Addendum to (check appropriate box) DDNS 11 EIS El Other MDNS Description of current proposal: Lot gradin_q for construction of new single-family residences. Total gradi for the plat (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 pr6ect 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: Lot 8: 2,300: Lot 9: 2,400: Lot 10: 2,400m 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 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 pro*ect 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 WAC (4/15/98) L:\TEMP\Gina\SEPA—Addcndum-Hoover.doc 7/14/05 Of Ehi, A J.S9% �� im 0 . CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98M (425) 771-02" RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS) MITIGATED DETERMINATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE FILE NO. PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93 *erlptlon of proposal: 12-Lot Single-family residential subdivision. The proposal. is for a Planned - R W tia Approximately 9,000 cubic yards - I Development (PRD) to. include common open space areas. e, en if'p-ding will be required to develop the subdivision. "nent: CHS Engineers of proposal, including street address If any. 6880 VZO St SW 6encv- CITY OF EDMONDS Agency -has determined that the requirements for environmental analysis, protection, and - measures have been adequately'addressed in the development regulations and comprehensive ted under chapter 36.70A RCW, and in other applicable local, state, or federal laws or rules, as ov. RCW 4321C240 and.WAC 197-11-158. or mitigations measures have been included as part. i6nation which al . levia . tes any probable significant adverse environmental impact. �4-_nental impact statement is not. required under RCW 4321.030(2Xc). This decision was made .,a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency.. is available to the public on req�� re is no. comment period for this DNS. 'is DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14 from the date below. Comments must be submitted by at: Kathleen Taylor Associate Planner 425-771-0220 Jmonds, 121 5th Avenue North, Edmonds. WA 98020 Signature: this determination to Robert Chz/.Planning Manag . er. at.121 5th Avenue WA 98020, no later than January 3. 20039 by filing a written appeal citing 3ke specific Mct(jal objections. Contact Rob Chave to read or ask about the mbe-r-2-0,2002, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community "and the Edmonds Post Office. N-ked" Agencies on the revers e side of this forrn, along with a copy of the 114 PRD-02-40/P-02-93/AP-03-3 Per I of 2 Aftachn . ta-rit 12 _77�- -7-7- Mailed to the follo w'ng along with the Environmental Checklist xx Environmental Review Section Department of Ecology �xx P.O. Box City of Lynrr*oW Attn.: Senior 47703. OlYmPia. WA 98504-7703 Planner P.O. Box 5008 �Yrwftood, WA 98W6 V AT&T Broadband __XX1 Outside �Jant Engineer Wrth A lica% Merle Steinman .479'.12 Ave NE Sr. 47 1 P Region 2081184 Ave S.,,Suw� 101 Kent WA 98(jjj Seattle, WA 98105 �XX Agent Matthe - w Bateman, CjjS Enginem 12507 Bel -Red Rd Bellevue, WA 98005 MITIGATING �EASURES INC ORPORATED INTO THE P ROPOSAL- 1. THE APPLICANT MUST PAY TRAFFIC MITIGATION FEES FOR EACH PM PEAK HOUR TRIP GENERATED 13Y THE PROPOSAL. Environmental Check is- t and Vt fty Map 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-022 '��N)11 Am Q� ADDENDUM TO EXISTING ENVIRONMENTAL DOCUMENT Addendum to (check appropriate box) ODNS El EIS r_X1 Other MDNS &Addendurn Description of current proposal: Lot grading for construction of new single-family residences. Total grading for the plat (PRD-2002-40/P-2002-93) was 17,500 cubic yards of cut. Total grading for new single-family residences was estimated at 17,301 cubic yards of cut. Total grading for the Meadowdale Estates promec was estimated at. 34,801 cubic yards. Grading for Lot 4 is now estimated at 1350 cubic yards, which is greater than the amount anticipated in the Addendum (1000 cubic yards). 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 and Addendum to the MDNS. Agency that prepared document being adopted: City of Edmonds Date document was issued: -December 20, 2002 WQNS) and July 14, 2005 (Addendum) Addendum: -The above determination was made for the Meadowdale Estates Planned Residential Development. The current proposal seeks to grade/fill Lot 4 of the PRD for construction of a single-family residence. The Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance is seen as addressing all the pertinent environmental impacts on the site. No significant and adverse impacts from the promect 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" Ave. N, Edmon ds, WA 98020 Date: September 21, 2005 -Signature: 1AA AAA (AWAA WAC (4/15/98) L:\TEMP\Gina\SEPA—Addendum-HooveT—Lot4.doc 9/21/05 STREt FILE -r '7 CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH.- Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 HEARING EXAMINER RECEIVED AUG 1'6 2005 FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION OF THE HEARING EXAMINER PERMIT COUNTER CITY OF EDMONDS APPLICANT: Scott Hoover representing R.H. Hoover, Inc. CASE NO.: V-05-53 LOCATION: 17118 60 Place West, Lot 4 of Steinman's Meadowdale Estates (see Exhibit A, Attachment 1). APPLICATION: Request for a variance to allow to reduce a required street setback from 25' to 20' feet and to increase height from 25' to 28' on a proposed new single family residence (see exhibit A, Attachments 2 through 4). REVIEW, PROCESS:,. Hearing Examiner holds a public hearing and makes final decision. MAJOR ISSUES: Compliance with the following: 1) Section 16.20.030, Single family site development standards. 2) Chapter 20.85, Variances SUMMARY OF RECOMM[ENDATION AND DECISION: Staff Recommendation: Approve with conditions Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve with conditions PUBLIC HEARING: After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report; and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a public hearing on the application. The hearing on the Hoover applications was opened at 3:00 p.m., June 23, 2005, in the Council Chambers, Public Safety Complex, Edmonds, Washington, and closed at 3:50 p.m. Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division. Note that at the request of the ap ort to expedite the hearing, variance requests plicant and in an eff numbers V-05-51, V-05-52, and V-05�-53 I were heard concurrently as they involve three properties that occur on the same side of . the same street, are part of the same PRD, have similar site circumstances and requesting the same.yariances. Incorporated August 11, 1890 0 0 0 Case No. V-05-53 The assumption underlying the applicants' arguments is that an deviation from the PRD Y specifications will result in noncompliance with the ADB's approval. This is also inaccurate. Chapter 203 5.020. 1 (b) states: "The PRD process shall not be used to reduce any bulk or performance standard not specifically referenced herein. Bulk standards not referenced may be varied only in accordance with Chapter 20.85 ECDC, Variances, or through the modification provision provided through the subdivision process as outlined in Chapter 20.15 ECDC" [emphasis mine] The PRD code itself allows for variances to occur, and variances result in minor modifications to underlying rules. CONCLUSION: Nfinor modifications to bulk and dimensional requirements that are approved through the variance process do not result in noncompliance with approved PRD specific�aions. 2. Mr. Hertrich and IW Tucker contend that using the variance process violates PRD procedural and dimensional requirements. Specifically, that Chapter 20.85.000 states a variance may not be used to vary procedural requirements, noting that there has already been the one allowed open record hearing for the PRD and that this application is nothing more than another open record hearing on the PRD. This is inaccurate. As noted above in #1 the PRD process has been completed. Variances are a separate process and may be applied to approved PRI)s to vary specific dimensional. requirements that cannot be varied within the PRD process, e.g. height. Additionally, The PRD code says heights cannot be varied during the PRD process. The code does not say that heights cannot be varied at all in a PRD. However, like all variance requests, it must meet all of the variance criteria to be approved. CONCLUSION: Variances do not violate the procedural requirements of a PRD process and may, in fact, be applied to properties within an approved PRD. 3. The Facts presented in sections A, Introduction, and B, Site . Description, on page 3 and 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, June 17, 2005, accurately reflects the project history, site circumstances, zoning requirements and land use, and are hereby adopted by reference. 4. The Fact and Conclusion regarding compliance with SEPA review on page 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, June 17, 2005, are accurate and hereby adopted by reference. 5. The Facts and Conclusion regarding compliance with Critical Area provisions on page 4 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, June 17, 2005, are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference. 6. The Fact and Conclusion regarding compliance with the Zoning Standards for PRD-02- 40 on pages 4 and 5 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, June 17, 2005, are accurate and are hereb" .y adopted by reference. 7. The Facts and Conclusions regarding compliance with Variance Criteria Chapter 20.85 on pages 5 through 10 in Exhibit A, Planning Division Advisory Report, June 17, 2005, .are accurate and are hereby adopted by reference. Case No. V-05-53 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 a . ppeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request. LAPSE OF APPROVAL Section 20.05.020.0 states Unless the owner obtains a building permit or if no building is required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval; the variance shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner file's an application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.' NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessor's Office. EXMITS A. Planning Division Advisory Report dated June, 17, 2005. B. Letter submitted by Cathy Patterson, R.H. Hoover, Inc.,, dated June 23, 2005. C. 2 drawing depicting the differences in heights between the requested Variance, staff recommendation and the underlying zoning. D. Letter submitted by Roger Hertrich dated June 23, 2005. PARTIES OF RECORD Cathy Patterson, Scott Hoover, Gary Nash Planning Division Hoover Pren-�ier Homes 16300 Mill Creek Blvd. #108 Engineering Division Mill Creek, WA 98012 Roger Hertrich Phinneas Tucker 1020 Puget Drive 711 Daily Street Edmonds, WA.98020 Edmonds, WA 98020 Barry & Mariana knight 7001 Meadowdale Beach Road Edmonds, WA 98020 �i OT + M6-kt?0W1?A-L_6 PLANNING DATA E -S, NAME: FLAA- ttQOVtY�� Iric, . DATE: 00t 11 W I 2,QQr5 SITEADDRESS: 1-+A119 LoCI -Fjj FJOL(,e, W&E�t PLAN CHK#:-0-5—. 15�9 PROJECT DESCRIPTION: New cnfi� REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT- (Kes FLAG LOT: (Y��& ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION 11 StudyRequired- Com PIP'tc, )I UWaiver UConditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: CDMR11E+f,,(MDN5' W/plat + Adc[4en du ry) -Fo V" U Fee 61-Y. Of oradfvlj W/ L�V* +) U Checklist UAPO list w/ notarized form (Needed for 500 cubic yards of 9cading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 It. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) U Exempt -H11 PYDPD�'� CLCjCje4jCjU m -F-Dr i�b6-D SETBACKS: 0y) OCA 12-1 210007. Re, uired S'etbacks: 7 > RiqW Side: Rear": -2, e �Street: Side: V Actua S a tua Setbalcs: 2,D' 'Ri9W Street- 6-e4t Side: 05 Side: Rear: V9 Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes No I VVXIN U DETAC"ED STRUCTURES: IN ROCKERIES: A,6YV, "o VWW'v1 oy� Z7 i-r- U FENCE SITRELLISES: U 13AY WINDOWS I PROJECTING MODULATION: Ll STAIRS I DECKS: PARKING: Required: Actual.- cov cycA a r ca 6 LOT AREA:. TD 50 -1 �!' pf LOT COV&�. Calculations: z>2_-1_ _610vorale-1 BUILDING HEIG"T: Datum Point:_. CIE> M Datum Elevation: Maximum Allowed: OfQQ-41P) Actual Height: Q (�b 61.19 .-+'9 C" A.D.U. CREATED?: No Yes) WP,+ ioair cApwyqs&por6 ]rip (,qpj5��yi ftAulijj� D: ni 0-2mit i apprmyka Ar a pputA -T2-r;v. -nor SUBDIVISION: MCA id Q\A(d a It, S-bAA kE2 P' 2-4) Q I - 0 1 -125 Z F P-9 10 o-2'. 14R15-6 2>:� + - I- LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: ( yts_� AV4�ra �e/ �THER:j- je00 0 - 9 3 E)jy -a-P V M + h.CA' C/(CA 6C, C'L OVed .... 10 0 VA f,'#- 1-D 61110 :bh 4C, 14 D12 iC-- &'Y-a Ole, 4- Z E;. -+ (a rY1 AX Plan Review By: LVIA J I'/0 t-i - —:"' 40D-4(9M4)) NewB PP lafuungDataForm -DOC N 0 A -VIA Pe4�i- 04tv Lac� ApPL4:P-61 +iw- n-,r cipryvv-c4 (wt,+ loar i�howvi ck7wyi6f-4t-r,5). Ilk k du M I-D 56?,+ f6 6 t4-4 d 09 ll�- Q Ott I FENCE RE swea russcmet A0 CITY STE). DETAI "4 ftz k AS ^umtm Air -" c9A*wL'&pAcc-. -ro A—. =SAO' . 4" PVC TirHTLINE PLJA) as. TO STORM SYSTEM 03-415E Pq 11 42F C0 351; P LLJ W 558, —j . , - STORMV Zone -Qi-q0ComerhJ,0FIag 0 Im SZ MATERX STUB _pp-p co cl -3 IL2 F '8DR 36 Setbacks RegWred uj < Front 1E, 7-0 Actual 0 4u 0-0 u< Z cx: Fc 2- LU Z f) Side 'N (0 1-+-V, cr s < 3bel 14— RearVV lQ 11to -0 0 x uj f— U) Lu DEC< ROOF fluabilipm -5 11 3-70' A u, 0 SMA 255 5F V - Lu ....,9-feight 19 2"5. 01 T 0 BUMP -OUT 0 LONER LE�7EL v - -2,0 0 g - E; in C) cj) < in Q, J�EGTP IMP BASIN 0 PER ONN To Mp' F SPECS. Or-, -70.0' 00 f-u W 3�2 TOP INSPECTIONS REQUIkl) P' (�3: 0 C) LL PLAN 415A- CHI 3 7 lz F 7 'Fl M S b 76 ,ApA FF. LONER 312.61' ... -7-4 78 F F 6ARAGE z TRENCH DRAIN SANiTARY KA5TE TO STORM DRAIN 5.5 'E E-E-CTOR SYS17EM NOTES 5-7(1.�4 .. .... ........ . . ...... �=t, ENTRY Lu 1. MAIN FLOOR MASTER BATH c 25-5 5F. 380 > AND PONDER ROOM TO 6RAVITY FEED TO 5.5. 552 -580.0 CL L-I 2. MAIN FLR. LAUNDRY 8 NALK vIA"r ALL LONER FLR. TO DRAIN z 149 255 SF 552 0 0 < TO EJECTOR SYSTEM 6 SLOPE DN < -75q , SF 0 CD cl� CN LLJ 5. LONE5T FIXTURE ON CL < LONER FLR. =3-72.61- 'WAY LL ID . > 4 '13'03" E 115.00- W, C-0 :,,,,o�N 02 L4cyAv*% C '0/"2"L=,ptftL*,r covsv- -TSTUB I.E.= 3-75.5- SA1,11,T-A, RX a El 35v 5 -111.1 RES TE�PORARY CONSTRUCTION P/1- 'ITRONCE OCT 12 2005 APPROVED BiP i , -- , --,'i .1 f 1 11, CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE PER L �DEPARTMENT CITY STD. DETAIL T MONDS FL--tc* �1-5tmo= ce M tl gl o -k-1 0 2- 61TH F N RESUB (T) Iq5 LF. L.FE'. FEB 0 12006 RIM = 386.6cl, RIM 5435.15' I.E. IN L-07 .4 SITE FLAN I.E. OUT 3-7b.4-7' BUILDING DEPARTMENT 11.6-ro or. ZCM OMMIRAL NOT05 CITY OF EDMONDS Nritten dimensions on this drov4lnq 5holl hove- precedence, over 5coled dimensions. Gontactor shall verify all dimensions, conditions, etc., portoinine to the vqork before pr(::�ceaedlnq. The Oviner must be notified of ony vorlotlon5 from the dimensions ondlor conditions shovqn on these drov4incjs. Any such vorloti.on sholl be resolved by the 0"ner prior to proceeding v4ith the v4ork, or th,-- r-ontroctor 5holl ciccept Full ra5ponsibility for the cost to rectify some. L-07 .4 ADDRESS PARGEL NUMBER 1-7118 6cith PI. N EDMONDS, NA. 0101-75-000-004-00 LOT AREA: 11,69-70 SGUARE FEET LE6AL DESCRIPTION LOT(S) 126, MEADONDALE BEAGH, AGGORDIN& TO THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 5 OF PLATS, PA&E(S) 3b, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NASHIN&TON; EXGEPT 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-GONVEYED TO THE GITY OF EDMONDS FOR ROAD PURPOSES E3"r DEED UNDER REGORDINC2 NUMBER 25-75256., SITUATE IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF NASHIN6TON. VERTIGAL DATUM: -DR14W BENGHMARK (BM) NAD 8)51qI PEP, REGORDED SURVEY #20030514500-7 RIM OF SANITARY SENER MANHOLE 'C', ELEVATION 555.15PER ENIOINEERINC2 DRANINGS. 6RADIN6 PLAN: GUT: 615 GU. YDS. FILL: 1516 GU. YOS. BAL,ANG�D ON SITE. AVERA6E LOT SLOPE EAST TO HEST 50 VERTIGAL FEET 103 LINEAR FEET HE16HT CALCULATION - LOT 4 - N/ VARIANCE A= 5-71. 51 E3= 563-ci' G = 500.0' D= 3b5Y 14cfb.a'/4= 3-74.-7' AVERA6,E OR16INAL 6RADE MAXIMUM BUILDIN6 HEIC714T AGTUAL BUILDIN6 HEI6HT MAXIMUM MAIN FLR. ELEV. = 2q.1% SLOPE 400.06' (25.559* *NOTE: PER'APPROVED VARI ANCE, ACTUAL FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION ViILL BE DETERMINED BY 14% MAX. DRIVENA"r SLOPE. LOT GOVERAOE: (PROPOSED) RESIDENCE 2,4cib SOUARE FEET OARAC-2E -70-1 SOUARE FEET GOV. AREAS 255 5OUARE FEET DECK 255 5OUARE FEET, 55MH "B" G��— - - RIM = 5a6.6ci' I.E. IN = 3-7-73cl TOTAL 5,6cl . 3 SGUARE FEET (51.6%) 35% MAXIMUM LOT GOVERA&E IMPERVIOUS AREAS (PROPOSED) RESIDENCE 4,031 SOUARE FEET (Vil OVERAHN65) DRIVE, NALK'� DEGK TOTAL A 1,22-7 5GUARE FEET 51250 SOUARE FEET (45.1%) REFER] REGOf; PROPE UNDER 5NOHG 4 , t a A Fl-7- 69TH PL W CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILTI A 6 ADDRESSi PERMIT 17118 69TH PL W NO. 10122 CONTRACTORi HOMEOWNERi SCALEi RH HOOVER INC I RH HOOVER INC , I NTS DATE INSPECTED, INSPECTED BYi DATE DRAWNi DRAWN BY, 05-12-2006 1 JH 1 08-17-07 1 J.TRIEU f v5/12120'06' 4 Al 5/12/2006 =91 CITY OF EDMONDS ADDRESS 17118 - CONTRACTOR Same DATE 6/5/06 69th PL W WATERLINE AS-BUI HOMEOWNER Rlt Hoover Inc SCALE NTS DRAWN WATERLINE BY J, Cottins NO, 2006-0169 DEPARTWI��M,PkNGS PER INTERNAT364AL RESIDENTIAL CODE,SECTION R110 AT: 17 Occupancy established by this certificate: No. Stories: 2 Owner of building: iQ The Single Family Residence at 17118 69,n p,X( 2003 edition of the International Residential Code as the proposed occupancy is classified. By: �Building Permit M 2006-0169 R3 Dwelling Uniti!" 1 N/A T-, Type of Construction: VB �6d and approved complying with the requirements of the and division of occupancy and the use for which Issued this 13 th . day of November, 2006 Chief Building Official Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and anew Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds -Building Official. 7 1 t Z_ t No: City of Edmonds RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT Issue Date: - A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B. Type of Work (be specific): il I N Vf1AJW1 _. I .. RU I (W 0. Contractor: Contact: Mailing Add ress: Phone: -7 R� 8x A-2L&_ State License #:- Liability Insurance: Bond: City Business License #: /6/7L D. Building Perrriit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. F-1 Comriie'rcial E] Subdivision City Project EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, qQ ST, OVWSD) EJ Mulfi-Fairfily Single Family Other "i o, S'4. ----A A 1. - V INSPECTOR: 'TIIVWV - MMO, - U F. PAVEMENT CUT: 0 YES EJ NO G. SIZE OF CUT x CONCRETE CUT: YES F1 NO G. Mail Approved Permit F� Call for Pickup APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY: Applicant understands by'his/her signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds 'harmless from injuries, damages6r" claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the 06i,�':bf._ Edmonds or an.v qf its departments or emplQvees. including but not limited to the defense of anY legal proceedings including def6hie co�is and attorneyfees' by reason ofgranting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS �RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BYCITYFORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBITOR CREDIT WILL BEPROCESSED FORISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT. * Traffic control and public safety shall be in �ccordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must hai ie certification verifying completion of the required training in their possession. * Restoration is to be in accordance with City'codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or City - approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS. + Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application. CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK I HA VE READ THE ABOVE STATEMENTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE— THATIMUS"1�4KE THE PINff COPY OF THE PERMITA VAILABLE ONSITE ATALL TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS Signature: ltlh:-AHV�� Date: /C—ontractor)or Agent) FOR:'CITY APproved by: Time Authorized: V6i'd After, U. I Special'Conditions:. VSE!.0NL`y. Right-of*a . y ee'- Di§fubti6n F6e/Fu ........... I�su&-b REQUIRED INSPECTIONS: OZ.., Call 425-771-0220, Ext. 1326for a 24-hour voice -recorded inspection request line. FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK: DATE: Inspecl'or's Signature 7 f.. CADocurnents and Si5ni�js\Curlis\My Documents\Fo=\Engnrng\ROWpcmit_.doc Rcvised 10/01103 4 �",��CATE RECE06 PERMIT EXPIRES PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS.. NUMBER CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS ADDRESS SUITE/APT# 01 PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO , NO. LID NO. MAILING ADDF�Es� z LID FEE $ 0 PUBLIC RIGH I UF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP TESCP Approved RW Permit Required ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING _ PROPOSED Street Use Permit Required 0 Ll�,� �j - Inspection Required ;135 Sidewalk Required 13 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT underground 13 NAME ME . TER SIZE _T_T_ Wiring required N13" ha -4( LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIREDe AL(ev . uj al 0 / (p", 1= ADDRESS �14A' 12 ('n YESC NO E3 x REMARKS E FOR EROSION CONTROLJDRAINAGE Uwv/ Ae 's f,�. OWNEWCONTRACTOR RESPONSIBL CITY' AL ZIP TELEPHONE L �V - M dlk I _:W P L.,+T f210 J,, J��j Zj-) NAME CBL# 102i 14, 0MO ALI lz "ADDRESS T11 ENGINEERING REVIEWtD BT DATE 4 111LU CxV_-k- -ff-jo 0 z CITY I 0 FjP TELEPHONE REVIEWED BY DATE U. STATE LICENSE NUMBER EIPI RATION DIE (�KCEaR-01& SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION SEPA BY ot 3 YREQ'D C.IJILETED tXEIMPT -2 -t5!) A d I -0OF PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. CA# ZONE ES ONO SIGN AREA ,)4 HEIGHT uj SH R 0 E DOL4 WAIVER C3 FP-D 0 ALLOWED I PROPOSE 01 2� D ALLOWED PROPOSED STUDY 'Pr �F_ Ei� NEW RESIDENTIAL t5 D1 19r PLUMBING MECH LOT ERAGE REQUIRED SET13ACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.) �v ALLOWED ADDITION COMMERCIAL COV'ROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT -UR-SIDE REAR COMPLIANCE OR 0 MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE I -po z REMODEL PARKi 71 0 MULTIFAMILY SIGN ROV LOTAREt6 PLANNING REVIEWED BY D�TE N-40tV REO'D IDED REPAIR GRADING FENCE X CYOS I i X FT) KLMARKS T7_ DEMOLISH TANK 0 HER 0 1,11 A4 P,I' f, vit P C GARAGE RETAINING WALL, FIRE SPRINKLER z CARPORT 11 ROCKERY 0 FIREALARM 6-4- +D P (TYPE: OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) -EXPLAIN: TYI-�' k 4 TYPE JKTRUCTION CrDE OCCURAI;�Y---7 R NUMBER OF IG DWELLING SPECIAL I�SPECTION I �1? - S UNITS CONSULMT_ OCCUPANT IBE WORK TO BE DONE: REQUIRED;P"Y LOAD REMARKS GEOTfCH REPORI tt, Ill E 77 J U BY., STRUCTURALD o n4cp/A� I Pr �97q-q VALUATION' $ 14 bA(n Descriptlion FEE Description FEE Plan Check State SUrCharge HEAT SOURCE L01 S! VESTED DATE 4 N,* it - Abilding Pkr"nit" qqq o 4 *1 il; , I , . 1 1 bing City Surcharge +_16 Base Fee THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZIEf bNLiTHE�W0RK,NOTED.`TkIt PERMIT -COVERS WORKjo -1�16_Chanical E ON PRIVATE 1PAOP' ' I - �.j BE DON ERTY ONLY. ANI To DONMAIN (CURB ip� ip� P�R (-�CONSiRucii6I4 & fiH4 Rlo� S. SIDEWALKi�16RIVEWkS�iA',4�dUEES, 'TC. - SEPARATE PERMISSION�� E -) WILL REQUIRE Grading PERMITAPPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19 Eingri .00.005(A) . (5) 25� PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19-00,005(A)(6) - I SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION Engr. Inspection *APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review IN INTEREST, AGREES to INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF t Plan Chk. Deposi C 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND < ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY Receipt # x Fire Inspection 0 _j DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIRE HALL OT BE 7 b FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT S N( X0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO MENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.- Total Amt. Due 51� Recording Fee I ---rReceipt # I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF APPLICATION APPROVAL THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC. This application is not a permit until signed by the TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN.s COMffNSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27. FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. SIGNATURE 6WNEA OR AGENT DATE SIGNED 0 ICIALS SIGN, DATE I / 1 (425) 4, 771-0220-- LEASED BY ATTWTI.ON I DIE IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL EXT. 1333 J wk A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI. FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 if IBC110 I IRC110. ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW 10104 -INSPECTOR PRESS HARD - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES PINK -.OWNER - GOLD - ASSESSOR Nritten dimensions on this drat-4ing 5hall have precedence- over 5c.ciled dimensions. (:,ontcictor 5hall verify all dimon5hr>ns, conditions, etc., pertaining to the viork before proceeding. The Ovqner must be notified of ony vorlotlon5 from the dimensions ond/or conditions !E-,hovqn on those dr,�;w4ing5. Any such variation shall be re5olved by the O"ner prior to proceeding "Ith the v4ork, or the) Contractor 5holl accept full responsibility for the cost to rectify 5omo. L-07 4 ADDRESS 1-7115 6cfth PI. H EDMONDS, VqA. PARGEL NUMBER 0101-15-000-004-00 LOT AREA: LE6AL DESGRIFTION -70 SGUARE FEET LOT(S) 1265, MEADONDALE BEAGH, AGGORDINC7 TO THE PLAT THEREOF REGORDEP IN VOLUME 5 OF FLATS, FA6E(S) 55, RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, NA5HIN6TON; EXGEPT 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 1265 GONVErED TO THE GITY OF EDMONDS FOR ROAD PURPOSES B"r DEEP UNDER REGORDINO NUMBER 25-75256. SITUATE IN THE GOUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF NA5HIN6TON. VERTICAL DATUM: BENGHMAR< (BM): &RADIN6 PLAN: NAD 85/cfl PER REGORDED SURVEY #200E30514500-1 RIM OF SANITARY SENER MANHOLE "G", ELEVATION 555.15FER ENIOINEERINC-2 DRANINOS. GUT 6 15 GU. '*rDS. FILL: IE316 GU. YD5. BALANGED ON SITE. AVERAOE LOT SLOPE EAST TO V4EST 556- 556'= 50' 50 VERTICAL FEET 105 LINEAR FEET 2cL I% SLOPE HEI6HT GALGULATION LOT 4 N1 VARIANGE A= 3-71.8' E3= 365A' G = 5bO.O' 14c18.614= 5-74.1' AVERAOE ORI(31NAL 6RADE 5-74.1' MAXIMUM E3UILDIN(5 HEI6HT 400.06' (25.509 AGTUAL BUILDINC2 HE16HT 5qCI.-7q' * MAXIMUM MAIN FLR. ELEV. 582.6r-i'* *NOTE: PER APPROVED VARIANCE, AC,TUAL FINISHED FLOOR ELEVATION NILL BE DETERMINED BY 14% MAX. SSMH "B" DRIVENAY SLOPE. LOT GOVERAC7E: (PROPOSED) RE51DENGE OARA6E GOV.AREAS DECK 2,4cib SGUARE FEET -70-7 SGUARE FEET 255 5GUARE FEET 255 SGUARE FEET RIM = 5�56bcf' I.E. I N 57-73ci' TOTAL 5,613 SOUARE FEET (31.6%) 55% MAXIMUM LOT GOVERAOE IMPERVIOUS AREAS (PROPOSED) RESIDENGE (N/ OVERAHN65) DRIVE, NALK DEGK TOTAL 4,051 SGUARE FEET 1,22-7 SOUARE FEET 5,255 SOUARE FEET (45.1%) REFERENGES E30TTOM OF LONER FOOTINC57 g 5623 SHORT FLAT EROSION GONTROL MEASURES TO E3E MAINTAINED. RECORD OF SURVEY OF THIS PROPERTY BY GHS EN6.71NERS, ING., UNDER REGORDIN6 NO. 20050514500-7, SNOHOM15H COUNTY, HASHINOTON ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE SILT FENGE PER FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DAMAGE C, I TY STE). DETAI SENER EJECTOR PUMP BASIN PER ONNER'S SPECS.* LOCATED IN CRANLSPACE SENER EJECTOR PUMP BASIN TOP ELEV. = E36ci.0 OVERFLON ALAPZM AT LONER SEE PLUI-113ING, SCHEMATICS /< '/ GE3 "A" DEGK C5EE E_ N P OVERFLG C E 'K LONEST FIXTURE 5-72.61 4'' PVC, T16HTLINE 05-0-4, 1'55 TO STORM SYSTEM 115.04 /Y\ E356 ------------- 55b STORM ST_U5 555 E364 --360 01 DEC OOF A ,255 5F, OVERhAN B —F.P. Bump -OUT LONER Lff��ffl _2 M i,-n 36�5 t z 5_74 �7 5 4 5-76, TRENCH DRAIN TO STOR M DR -A'11'N _175 F.F. OARA6E PIS- 0 0 Ob 0 0- 5E52 01100 U 000 0 0 0 o 010. (52 14% PE" 'DWO (57 _75%%F_3 dz� 150 )-ef f-0 0 (N L'f�_ - 4 13& �54 0 1 is) 0 D_ LU :2 "k v_qM_ 386 AC"k"PE.PTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL $0 35 SCH 40 'N .12 r-sio KANCOR 0 -- "0- 10. O� 01- 0 0 o' 'O'c 0— -00 - _)0 — _ r- 370 PLAN 415 z-1- 3-72 \Q) F77TIAM E302_.5q F.F. LONER 5 2.6 x -74 3-76 Z S.S. I.E 3-7cLa, 41 ENTRY LU I I \255 SF. rT_ > E380 t3— _U __= 3PO z: 0 ____ ':�� 0_ LU 1 K NAY E35 SF. x 352.0 \j6vfrj FORM rIONS REQUIRED 0 352 Z - TO P(5NER ESMT. CD LU Cz LL-LL �n CD D < > N 02015105" E 115.001 -U%l 1413(n SANITARY TUE3 I.E.= 5-78ff cafev, CONSTRJCTION ENTRANCE PER GIT)" STD. DETAIL TWORARY DONSTRUCTION ENIPAN05. REQUiRED &'�TH FL. K L-07 -4 LE6END: EXISTINO ORADE PROPOSED 6PADE OR16INAL 6RADE *' FOR HE16HT GALGULATION 55 — Iq5 L.F. �ITITD ",ND AXE A R�_D JNK STAIMI'P j By PJJTHOjlt��j,,r 11' TH)" NOTEE 13 N T AND N E SANITARY NASTE EJEGTOR SYSTEM NOTES I. MAIN FLOOR MASTER BATH AND PONDER ROOM TO G;,RAVITY FEED TO S.S. 2. MAIN FLR. LAUNDRY ALL LONER FLR. TO DRAIN TO EJECTOR SYSTEM 5. LONEST FIXTURE ON LONER FLR. =5-72.61' �Pe<m appliec( - oy "�rv\1pcl (W,&+ Wr c;VAowvl E3M own 0 A-ax'(0 (I ff�-M-HIVARff — __<: a— — S SSMH 11G11 RIM = 5 a 5.15' I E. OUT 5-75 4-7 APPROVED AS NOTED B"( ENGINEER G IRIOHT-04F�WAY CCN8""'RUCTj'0pi PERMilf -tkiluo AND INSPECTION REQUIRED" Date: Zone P P-D - D �,-qqC elEo Fl N orn ag () AMMI:1ed Front F , Sides N ------ TT7i5_ Rear W Other IF7 51 7r= I=L.AN *c V . w 06.95� SEE CBENERAL NOTF-5- 5CALE: I" 012 5 10 1-9 25 50 APPROVED BY PLANNING QLF11 F==Il 2512 REGISTERE ARCHI NASH E F W HINGTO11I 4� d) 1 _10 (3 lu 13md) zj 13 't I- 0'a \D 6i 0 t:� Z Z 0 U) V) z �15 :� z > Z ul fj V # 0 lu OL IL T lu 3: d0i OL L 1 dat6-,: -7/12/05 --l-mit: pe revislons: drovin b�: H E—E F= _F PUEBLO ON& BUILDER5 HOOVER PREMIER HOME5 1-IFADONDALF / LOT 4 RESUB FEB 0 12006 BUILDING D 0 Ty OF EpM I ED� I ti 05-39q Hoovg4 1711b - AM PL sae, PUW F REBU'S FEB 0 2006 BUILDING DEPARTMENT r,ITY OF EDMONDS