17201 72ND AVE W.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII
5624
17201 72ND AVE W
--T—�
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNTMARCEL NUMBER:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
CRITICAL AREAS:- 7- rZ01 DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver 0 Study Required Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S--
TED: 4
DRAINAGE PLAN DA Qjp&C,"101f)
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (OTHER):_ 19q,2-0195,?
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE S: LID #:-6�
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: (,0/19A4
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: )4�6ic)
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:..
OTHER:
L-ATEMP\DSrs\Fom,s\Strcct File Checklist.doc
APPLICATION
The City of Edmonds for EASEMENT NO - --------------------------------------------
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
rib NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS LID NO. ----- ASMT. NO.
OWNER ----- Wt-'��/? ---- J.0 ------------------------------ CONTRACTOR ...... . ..... JQHNSACYt'�
----------- ------------- . ........................... PERMIT NO.
JOB ADDRESS --- ----- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . ........... E5 -------------------- BLOCK NO . ........................ ...........
0
................................................................................................................................................... -- ...........
t-32.
DATE.. X V 7 ........ By ------- 0�v�-Aelr - -------------------------
c
APPLICATION
n
Th ''City -of Edmo As
for
-SI[IDE SEWERPERMT
NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS
EASEMENT No . ............. .......
Z_ ID A,
OWNER. ......
pl.Al .....................................................
CONTRACTOR .... ...........................................
PERMIT No.:
ADDRESS
...... P_,ala .........
..... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No. ...................................
BL40CK No . ..... ........................... ..........
NAME OF ADDITION 4�ZL
A)V d,21; LL_57-
.................. ....
...................................................... ..............
7.r
t4
aFcEiVED
'
2�1 1974
M AY_ -
q" /vc,
Ye
slh��o S"
saz'j, k.
c, -.4
u-,
Approved:
DATE .................................................
By ................................ ............ ........ ..............
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER PERMIT
WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT
PERMIT 0 .G
Call 775-2525 for side sewer inspections BEFORE covering any portion of the constru tion.
Inspection will be provided within 24 hours after requst. NO Sat., Sun., or holiday inspeections.)
172M - 72rd P.var.i.,.c Ppst
ADDRESS LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION ............................................................
.................................................. . .......................................................
Lot 9, Rc��nda7u,2
PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPT91ON ...........................................................................
..............................................
-------------------------------------------------- - ---------- - ---------- - ------------------------------------------------------- I --------------------- 14-1) ... ----------------------------------
0 ----- ... . ............ ................................... . .......................................................
-------- --------------- OAX.7NER,&AND/OR BUILDER ............
--------------------------- ... * ... ' U
--.7�]MACTORI'S NAME ADDRESS --------------------------------- ------------------- * ----------------------------- ----------------------- * ---------- - ----------- * --------------------------------------------
......... ..... sanitary sewer
Permission is granted ---- ----- 1 19.1�., for repair and/or connection of a side sewer to the city
system in accordance with City of Edmonds ordinances.
AT--VNTION IS CALLED TO THE FOLLOWING:
No. 1—The o ners of the property may obtain a permit to construct sewer inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct
side sewer in street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected.
NOTE No. 2—All work performed in city right-of-way requires an Invasion of Right -of -Way Permit obtainable from the City Engineer's office.
NOTE No. 3—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit.
NOTE No. 4—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside -property line; minimum grade of 2%. No bends in grade
sharper than % will be permitted.
NOTE No. 5--Trenches in street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to improper
work which may develop within one year of completion.
NOTE No. 6—It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its appurtenances except to in-
sert the pipe into the wye.
DISAPPROVEDE] Date --- - ----- ......................... By .... ....... Date .............. ..... --- ---------------- Date -----_-------- ------------------- By ----------------
14"A ............ .......................................................
APPROVED Date.._ ----------- BY --- - ---- ... . . . ..................
Remarks: ....... . ....... ......... A ---------------- - -- - -------------------------------------- ........ / --------- - ------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------------------------------------------
..................................................................... ............................................................................................................................. . .............................................
BOTH Permit Copies MUST Be Signed By Owner of Firm Performing Construction PRIOR To Request For Inspection
I ....................................................................................... ... I hereby certify that the side sewer installation constructed under this permit
(Owner of Contracting Firm Perfcrrning Construction)
nstalled in accordance with all governing ordinances of the City of Edmonds.
Datedthis ............................ day of ................................................................. 19 .........
Check BEFORE you dig for: Water E], Gas E], Telephone E], Power E], Sewer El, Other El
v
. ......... ..... .... ........
40 #P20
City. of EdWog�'
Development SeJVC4§ D;ytrol
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
eg
Fax: 425.771.02,1
0J40 0\
ne Critical. Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
Tle purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
E
Date Received: V11Y10 /'
City Receipt#: 7
Critical Areas File M Q 0-1 - QC6 I
CriticalAreas Checklist Fee: $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill'but the checklist�. sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, the applicant. shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their prelin-dnary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs; and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false', misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I cer* that the information and exhibits herewith'subn-�tted are true and correc . t to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this a plica 'on n the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLIcANT/AGENT 7M DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I cer* that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials an the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting a endant application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant:
M A�-k LoewE-0
Name
,; � --)" () -; , � — 9
Street Address
CEDAMOAJ65
city State Zip
Telephone: 7
Applicant Representative:
,55A /T1 E-
Name - - -
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional): Email Address (optional):
#P20
CA File No:CPA7,0D
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ve.getaiion)
1. Site Ad&ess/Location: /7POI -z;214-D A 0E. Li.
2. Property TixAccount Number:
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 000 :5G) F-T.
4. Is this site.currently developed? _Z`yes; — no. —
If yes; how is. site developed?. SlkJ&L E FAM I ��z 1e5S10ej-VCE-
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical ris e* 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: A-)10,WE ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contairL§ areas of seasonal standn water: NOMF Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year? /47A
8. Site is in the floodway tJ 0 floodplain M0 of a water- course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
A/QL,5- Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: - W/J 65'_
F City Staff Use Only
1. Plan Check Number, if a )licable?
2. Site is Zoned'? (D
Z S__
3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? A Idirt, v v e,_e U,�(v 5aida �Octnj
4. Cxitical Areas inv map indicates Cri ical Area on site? -7 CV
-1dift W S . -2 . ao6lp ccQ((�n Aa
0(16L*=!U1 JZ � I
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? 4(s
DETERMINATION
STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
Reviewed by: ('VIAN�AK Date:
#P20
CA File No:CPA UD-7 m:)q
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/ topograkphy/ hydrology/ vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: / 7�201 —V 'j-0 A V�:: . Lj .
00 2. Property Tax Account Number: q�, MCMq
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): lq4 00 0 :5c) F-T.
4. Is this site currently developed?
yes; _ no.
If yes; how is site developed?
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-fe'et 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: 100PE ; Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standin water: NONE Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
— A/
8. Site is in the floodway L0 floodplain PO of a watercourse.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
- AAX 85- Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested ; meadow ;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site: OWE'
F ity Staff Use Only
Ci
1. Plan Check Number, if a )ficable? 74 1
2. Site is Zoned? S 11 j C (0 5
3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? A y e,-c aca utdv - 50AW(I to ct nn
4. Critical Areas inv'e0tory or C.A. map indicates Cri�ical Area on site? 12,ni�r-,61P ero((�n La:ZW
— i -n Fr. �, 4
:371r. , L f ,
5. Site within designated earth subsidence.landslide ha area? 14 6
DErERMINATION
i A
WAIVER
Date: 6
#.P2.0
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.02�1
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Appli cation for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, or soil
surveys).
0
Date Received: V11Y10
CityReceipt#: 7L=4=V.1
Critical Areas File #: 9,h Ob-4 -OC61
Critical Areas Checklist Fee:. $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist� sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. The City will review the checklist, make a
precursory site visit, and make a determination of the
subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this form. In
addition, . the applicant. shall include other pertinent
information .(e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assistant staff
in completing their preliminary assessment of the site.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs; and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees,. arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information ftimished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
By my signature, I certify that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this a plic n the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLIcANT/ AGENT DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above ApplicanttAgent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials an the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting a dan application.
SIGNATURE OF OWNER DATE
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
Owner/Applicant:
M Ar�k LoiFwE--AJ
Name.
CZ�2 0 9 1�
Street Address
5
city State Zip
Telephone: "/,Q 5 - 7 7 Z,2-
Applicant Representative:
'cZ A
Name
Street Address
City State Zip
Telephone:
Email address (optional): Email Address (optional):
CITY OF EDMONDS
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT
Site Location: 17201 72 nd Ave. W Tax Acct. Number: 00559800000800
Determination: Study Required Determination #: CRA-2007-0081
Applicant: Mark Loewen Owner: Mark Loewen
CRITICAL AREAS RECONNAISSANCE REPORT: STUDY REQUIRED
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site contains and/or is
adjacent to critical areas, including Geologically Hazardous Areas and Fish and Wildlife Habitat
Conservation Areas, pursuant to Chapters 23.40 of the Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC).
GENERAL CRITICAL AREAS REPORT REQUIREMENTS
Critical Areas Reports identify, classify, and delineate any areas on or adjacent to the subject
property that may qualify as critical areas. They also assess these areas and identify any potential
impacts resulting from your specific development proposal. If a specific development proposal
results in an alteration to a critical area, the critical areas report will also contain a mitigation plan.
You have the option of completing the portion of the study that classifies and delineates the critical
areas and waiting until you have a specific development proposal to complete the study. You may
also choose to submit the entire study with your specific development application.
Please review the minimum report requirements for all types of Critical Areas that are listed
in ECDC 23.40.090.D. There are additional report requirements for different types of
critical areas (see below).
Note that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined
in the ordinance. There are options on how to complete a critical areas study, and there is
an approved list of consultants that you may choose from. You may contact the Planning
Division for more information.
General Mitigation Requirements for all Critical Areas are discussed in ECDC 23.40.110
through 23.40.140.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — EROSION HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to an Erosion Hazard Area. Erosion Hazard
Areas include:
0 Those areas with Alderwood and Everett series soils on slopes of 15 percent or greater.
Any area with slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with
granular soils and springs or ground water seepage.
Areas with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include
existing landslide deposits regardless of slope.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH EROSION HAZARD AREAS
Development within an Erosion Hazard Area must meet additional criteria.
For erosion hazard areas with suitable slope stability, the only critical area study needed is
an erosion and sediment control plan prepared in compliance with the requirements set
forth in Chapter 18.30 ECDC as part of the construction documents. This option is at the
director's discretion, per Edmonds Community Development Code section 20.80.050.G.
In areas where the slope stability is not suitable, projects within Erosion Hazard Areas will
require a report by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer or other qualified professional. Note
that it is important for the report to be prepared by a qualified professional as defined in the
ordinance.
Report requirements are given in ECDC 23.80.050, and more generally in ECDC
23.40.090.D.
0 Development standards are given in ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREA
It appears that this property contains or is adjacent to a Landslide Hazard Area.
A Landslide Hazard Area is any area with a slope of forty percent (40%) or steeper and
with a vertical relief of ten (10) or more feet (except areas composed of consolidated
bedrock).
0 Landslide Hazard Areas are further defined and illustrated in ECDC 23.80.020.B.
In addition to the general requirements for Critical Areas reports referenced above, specific
Critical Area report requirements for Landslide Hazard Areas are provided in ECDC
23.80.050.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ASSOCIATED WITH LANDSLIDE HAZARD AREAS
Development is restricted within a Landslide Hazard Area and its buffer.
Projects that will intrude into these areas will require a report by a licensed Geotechnical
Engineer.
0 The criteria that are applied depend on the amount that the buffer is reduced.
0 The buffer can be reduced to a minimum of ten (10) feet (with an additional 15' building
setback per ECDC 23.40.280) if a report is prepared that meets the standards listed in
ECDC 23.80.050. The alteration must also meet the requirements listed in ECDC
23.80.060.
In addition, proposals to reduce the buffer to less than ten (10) feet must comply with the
design standards listed in ECDC 23.80.070.A.3.
STUDY REQUIREMENT — FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS
Since the site is located within a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area, the City would
like to preserve as much of the native vegetation as possible.
DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS ON A SITE WITH FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT
CONSERVATION AREAS
The applicant must submit a clearing/tree cutting plan with any development permit. Tree cutting
and clearing of native vegetation shall be limited to the footprint of development.
2
ALLOWED ACTIVITIES
Certain activities are allowed in or near critical area buffers as specified in ECDC 23.40.20. If you
have any questions about whether your proposed development qualifies as an allowed activity,
please contact a Planner for more information.
EXEMPT DEVELOPMENT PROPOSALS
Certain development proposals may be exempt from Critical Areas Requirements (ECDC
23.40.230). If you think that a specific development proposal may be exempt, contact a Planner
for more information.
Michael Cluaston. Planner June 11. 2007
Name Signatu(e Date
NOTE: Cited sections of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) can be found on
the City of Edmonds website at www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
3
I--
r_�-
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
ii STREET=FILE I
Name:
Date: q151-2-60 7
Site Address: Avt YV
Plan Check #: 2—
Project Description:
Reduced Site Plan Provided -/?ES
)/40)
Zoning: ba+ tio dtye1epkL+ 1"44wl
M ay e: q L9 -*7
,,Pag
Corner Lot: (YES NO)
1
ArleA
Flag Lot: (YES / R
'eritical 6reas Determination #: �11e-rwsia" Te4e-;*r�4-F
21C&tudy Required
11 waiver C1 0. t'>-:?0 -r--/) --b-ee_l7
SEPA Determination: ??-,p V t ge4 ^ e,. 4t,1Wfe4*, --ty? e--
Exempt
Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
Requireol Setbacks.
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
Actual Setbacks,.
Street:
Side:
10/
Side: 10
Rear: (0.5/
Detached Structures: f
Rockeries:
El Fences/Trellises:
11 Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation:
El Stairs/Deck:
. . . . . . . . . . . . . Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation: 10
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height: ;7q.q 1�21-7.
other
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot A�ea: 1-73(AO
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed:
.Lot Coverage Calculations:
S( o
ADU Created: (YES / NO)
Subdivision:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination I ssued: (YES
Comments
Plan Review By:
Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc
Dennis M. Bruce,
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
July 14, 2007
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark & Jana Loewen
2202998 1h pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
c� G07
ItRE?"77 FILE
P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations
Rear Deck Foundation — Top -of -Slope Proximity
17201 72nd Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington
RECEIVED
fill 2 5 2007
.o'o L_
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
This engineering report resents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Loewen property at 17201 72n?Ave. W. Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
required due to Mark Loewens concerns and City. of Edmonds requirements for deck
post foundation and too -of -slope issues.
REFERENCES:
• Site Plans (by owner)
• Expansion for new addition (plans submitted by owner)
• Site photographs by D. Bruce, P.E.
BACKGROUND:
This engineer understands that Mark and Jana Loewen have submitted plans for
a house addition (to the north of their existing house) at 17201 72nd Ave. W. It is
understood that City of Edmonds is currently reviewing the house addition plans.
Separately, Mark Loewen expanded his easterly deck and ' installed new deck posts and
foundation piers. This deck addition was done without a specific permit.
The City of Edmonds required a geotechnical evaluation of the top -of -slope condition as
well as the proximity of new deck posts footings.
EVALUATION:
This engineer performed an initial on -site evaluation on June 25, 2007 (see
photographs). Several soil test holes (hand dug to 38 inches) verified very dense,
native, sub -grade s . ands with gravels easily providing 3,000 p.s.f. bearing.capacity.. This
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS e SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION e DRAINAGE * DESIGN& PERMIT a LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 9815i5 (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o M & J Loewen
July 14, 2007
Page 2
engineer has done extensive work in the vicinity of this residence and has observed the
stable and excellent foundation performance of these native sands and gravels.
At the June 25, 2007 evaluation, it was unclear how deep the concrete deck post
footings were installed. This engineer directed Mark Loewen to dig additional holes to
allow for evaluation of the concrete post footings.
Follow-up geotechnical evaluation observed the concrete footings for several of the
deck posts (see photographs). All exposed footings revealed competent concrete
placed at more than sufficient size to allow for deck post bearing.
Additionally, the bottom of the footings were verified to be well founded in dense, native,
sub -grade soils.
None of the east side deck footings were near the "zone of influence" for the top -of -
easterly slope. In other words, the deck post footings did not adversely impact the top -
of -slope to the east.
Thus, geotechnically, the new deck post footings are approved, as constructed.
DRAINAGE CONCERNS:
During the on -site evaluation, this engineer observed existing gutter downspouts that
are currently "dumping" on splash blocks immediately adjacent the house. This
condition is not good.
Discussions with Mark Loewen have indicated that when the house addition plans are
approved and new construction begins the entire house gutter system will be properly
tight lined to eliminate the "dumping" near the house and at the top -of -slope.
This engineer requires that all house stormwater discharge be properly tight lined and
routed to either 1) any approved existing City of Edmonds storm system or 2) the
boftom of the easterly slope.
Geotechnical inspections recommended to verify proper drainage mitigation.
SUMMARY:
Geotechnical investigations have verified extremely dense, native, sub -grade
soils and proper deck post footing installations.
City of Edmonds
C/o M & J Loewen
July 14, 2007
Page 3
The location and alignment of the new deck posts do not adversely impact the
easterly top -of -slope or slope face itself.
Drainage improvements for the existing residence and future addition are
required.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
cc: M & J Loewen
Al
44
S%. VX
'14
a�4
R
IV
DRMWAYS=PL3:*3*'3'%-. &(AXDRrVZWAYSWPEA=WXDi4%
SETBACKS: FROVT2W(lXSli)Blo'(2).R4CX2o'(sI
IMPERV. SURPACR AREA: DRA'EWAY& WALIMAYS 9t7.coSQ. FT. 4 WS"NO BlnLDING j936693 SQ. Pr.(%V/
NEW BUILDING 1494.9* SQk Fr.(IV/EAVRS) - - 4368A?SQ. Fr.
HMCtfrcALC-9; AVLORADE -(A297.n'#B283.7S'#C289,7S�DW9.25')14-292.3715. MAX RIDGE -L%3;7,9
EXESTINGSLA13:298.11W. EXT.ySrFL-2W.i3'.2,4DFL3o&33',;UDGE.2j?,Ul. . '% 10
- - - - - -
MnNaCMADC
PVDFOSCC COVACE
A W75V
M5.75
C 2ag.75
14.2se7a
� 0 ,
Lli
<
F Wcow Dfi#*W 6y
r
cn
% \
- - - - - - % ------- It - - - - I I.,
I
J, I
006nNG F*MMNT
-------------
. It -
- - - - - - - - -----
<
Z< X
Om
Izz
i cl
W
z
z
S,
Z
0()
0 9
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
November 14, 2007
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark Loewen
22029 98thPI-W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation Recommendations
Loewen House Addition Project
17201 72nd Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington
Plan Check No. 2007 - 0652
RECEIVED
BUILDING DEPT.
This engineering reportpresents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
Loewen property at 1720172 n Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
required due to owner / contractor concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
REFERENCES:
0 Geotechnical Evaluation and Report for rear deck dated July 14, 2007 by D.
Bruce, P.E. 005, revision July 20, 2007 by "Unknown"
House Addition Plans dated April 2, 2
designer
Structural Designs by Custom Design Engineering
City of Edmonds Comment Letter dated September 17, 2007
BACKGROUND:
As stated in the July 14, 2007 geotechnical report, this engineer evaluated the
deck construction foundation and proximity to top -of -slope. A follow-up examination
verified extremely dense native sub -grade sands and competent deck post foundations.
It is understood that Mr. and Mrs. Loewen propose to construct a major house
addition, as indicated on the project plans.
City of Edmonds requires a geotechnical report for the entire house addition.
STREET FILE
SOILS * FOUNDATIONS e SITE DEVELOPMENT * INSPECTION * DRAINAGE 0 DESIGN& PERMIT 0 LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 2
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the previous site geotechnical information, 2 additional soil
test holes were dug by this engineer on October 21, 2007 (see Site Plan for additional
test hole locations). Both test holes revealed similar sub -grade conditions to the
previous findings, namely:
0" to 6" Roots and organic surficial soil
6" to 38" (bottom of test holes) Very dense native sands and gravels
No groundwater was encountered in either of the 2 test holes. Both test hole
walls remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 17201 72nd Ave. W, Edmonds, Washington is geotechnically
approved for the house addition project, subject to the following:
* Geotechnical verification of footprint layout prior to concrete placement.
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 3,000 p.s.f.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
p.c.f.
0 Geotechnical inspections by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have ' minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some over -excavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
0
9
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 3
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width. For
example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot wide
footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter
Coefficient of Friction
Passive Earth Pressure
Where:
Design Value
0.55
350 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be re -compacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
City of Edmonds
cto Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 4
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height,
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
Design Value
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
0.55
125 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
0 0
City of Edmonds
clo Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 5
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall is not
exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
EXC"ATION AND SLOPES:
At the time of this investigation and report, it is understood that no excavation is
proposed deeper than 4 feet below existing grade. Thus, temporary shoring is not
required. If, however, excavation depths exceed 4 feet, additional geotechnical
investigation and recommendations are required.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 2H: 1 V. It is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 6
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in either of the 2 test holes during the fieldwork.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes -to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
NOTE: Specific clearing limits to be established at pre -construction meeting
with City of Edmonds.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 7
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub -grade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the sandy, on -site
soils are very wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains
and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and
thus are not highly moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the
moisture content of these soils greatly exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill, which is to be placed in wet weather, should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material.may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
7 nd No drainage problems were evident with the existing Loewen residence at 17201
2 Ave. W.
It is essential that the current splash blocks for the existing house be replaced
with an improved drainage system that does not "dump" storm water onto the steep
slope adjacent the house (see July 14, 2007 report).
City of Edmonds
clo Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 8
Geotechnical inspections required to verify proper drainage system is installed
with no adverse geotechnical impacts.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
SLOPE SETBACKS — FIELD VERIFICATION:
The current house site plan (July 20, 2007 revision) lays out the existing and
addition house footprint. The location and alignment of this footprint is geotechnically
acceptable, subject to field verification prior to any concrete placement.
It is understood that this engineer will perform the field verification.
INSPECTIONS:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Foundation footprint layout — with regard to adjacent slope
• Soil cuts
• Foundation sub -grade verification
• Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
• Temporary and permanent erosion control — final completion report
SUMMARY:
The proposed Loewen house addition project is geotechnically viable when
constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of
Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspections during
construction.
STATEMENT OF MINIMAL RISK:
The plans and specifications for the Loewen house addition project have been
reviewed by this engineer and conform to the recommendations of the analysis and
report and, provided that those conditions and recommendations are satisfied during the
construction and use, and inspected and verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by
construction will be stabilized and remain stable and will not increase the potential for
City of Edmonds
c/o Mark Loewen
November 14, 2007
Page 9
soil movement, and the risk of damage to the proposed development and from the
development to adjacent properties from soil instability will be minimal.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
EXWE'S
DMB:abj
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
February 12, 2008
File No. 08-022
Mr. Mark Loewen
22029 98th Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Proposed Addition
17201-72 "d Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
Dear Mr. Loewen,
1JanGB*
;C 0 H P 0 R A T 4 0
Iotechnical & Earthquake
Engineering Consultants
FEB 19 2008
13UILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
As requested, PanGEO Inc. completed a geotechnical engineering study to assist you and your
design team for the proposed addition project at 17201- 72 nd Avenue W in Edmonds. This study
was performed in general accordance with our mutually agreed scope of work as outlined in our
February 1, 2008 proposal, and subsequently approved by you on February 5, 2008. Our service
scope included reviewing readily available geologic and geotechnical data, conducting a
reconnaissance of the site, observed two hand excavated test pits at the site, and developing the
conclusions and recommendations presented in this report.
SITE AND PROJECT DESCRIPTION
The subject property is located at 17201 — 72 d Avenue W in the City of Edmonds, Washington
(see Figure 1, Vicinity Map). The subject property is an iffegular-shaped lot and borders to the
west by 72 nd Avenue West and to the existing single-family residences to the north, south, and
east. The western portion of the site is generally level and is currently occupied by an existing
two-story house with a daylight basement. The eastern portion of the site slopes down toward
east with inclinations of about 25% to 35% percent. The slope portion of the site is heavily
vegetated with blackberry, bushes, and some trees.
We understand you plan to construct a new entrance and a new two-story addition with a
basement on the north side of the existing house (see Figure 2). Based on the available design
drawings, the new addition will be approximate 22 feet by 39 feet (see Figure 2). We also
understand that the new addition above the basement will be a lightweight wood -frame structure.
2021 A Minor Avenue E
Seattle, WA 98102
Tel (206) 262-0370
STREET FILE Fax (206) 262-0374
Mr. Mark Loewen
Proposed Addition — 1720172 d Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
To construct the new addition, excavations up to about 6 feet deep will be required on the west
building line.
The conclusions and recommendations in this study are based on our understanding of the
proposed development, which is in turn based on the project information provided. If the above
project description is incorrect, or the project information changes, we should be consulted to
review the recommendations contained in this study and make modifications, if needed.
SUBSURFACE EXPLORATIONS
Because of anticipated shallow depth of glacial till soil at the site, two test pits (TP- I and TP-2)
were hand excavated at the site to explore the depth to the very dense glacial till at the proposed
addition site. The approximate test pit locations were measured from existing site features and
are indicated on Figure 2. The test pits were hand excavated by the property owner to a depth of
about 3 Meet below the existing ground surface. An engineer from PanGEO observed the test
pits conditions after excavations had been completed, and documented the soils exposed in the
test pits. The relative in -situ density of cohesionless soils, or the relative consistency of fine-
grained soils was estimated from probing the bottom and sidewalls of the test pits. The test pit
excavation was backfilled with the excavated soils by the owner.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
According to the Geology Map of the Edmonds East and part of The Edmonds West Quadrangle,
Washington (James Minard, 1983), the project area is underlain by Vashon Glacial Till (QVt).
Vashon Glacial Till is described as generally consisting of a very dense, heterogeneous mixture
of silt, sand and clay with gravel and cobbles. The Glacial Till deposits are expected to exhibit
low compressibility and high strength in its undisturbed states. The hand excavated test pits
confirmed the mapped stratigraphy.
In summary, the test pits encountered near -surface fill over glacial till. . The descriptions of these
two soil units are summarized below:
UNIT 1: Fill — This unit was encountered from the surface to about 6 to 8. inches in TP-
I and TP-2, respectively. The fill observed generally consisted of medium dense, brown
to dark brown, silty sand with some roots and gravel.
UNIT2: Glacial T111— Glacial till consisted of dense to very dense, brownish gray to
gray, silty sand with some to numerous gravel was encountered below the fill and
extended to the bottom of the test pits at 3 Y2 feet. In its undisturbed state, this unit is
anticipated to exhibit high strength and low compressibility characteristics, but could
become easily disturbed and soften when exposed to excessive moisture.
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc 2 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
Plate 1. View of Test Pit TP- 1, looking down
Plate 2. View of Test Pit TP-2, looking down
Groundwater/seepage was not observed in the test pits. However, the potential presence of
groundwater seepage atop of glacial till and within the sandy or gravelly layers of the glacial till
in the wet season cannot be ruled out. It should be noted that groundwater/seepage conditions
will vary depending on the season, intensity of the rainfalls, local subsurface conditions, and
other factors. Generally, the water level is higher and seepage rates are greater in the wetter
winter months (typically October through May).
SITE RECONNAISSANCE AND STABILITY
During our site visit, we also conducted a visual reconnaissance of the sloping portion of the site
to observe signs of recent or past instability and potential indicators of future instability. During
our reconnaissance of the slope area in the eastern portion of the site, we did not observe existing
erosion scars or indications of previous debris flows, slump block failures or indications of deep-
seated or global instability. However, the slope is likely mantled by one foot to two feet of loose
to medium dense, weathered native till soil that could be susceptible to erosion or shallow
sloughing if surface vegetation is not maintained.
Based on the results of field exploration and site reconnaissance, it is our opinion that the site is
stable in its present condition. It is also our opinion that the proposed addition will not decrease
the site stability, provided that the recommendations presented in this report are properly
incorporated into the design and construction of the project.
GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS
SEISMIC DESIGN PARAMETERS AND LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT
We anticipate that the seismic design of the new addition will be accomplished using the 2006 or
later editions of the International Building Code (IBC), which specifies a design earthquake
having a 2% probability of occurrence in 50 years (return interval of 2,475 years). The
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rpt.doc 3 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
following parameters, which are consistent with the 2002 USGS seismic hazard maps, are
recommended for the seismic design of the building:
Spectral
Spectral
Design
Control
Design PGA
Site
Acceleration
Acceleration
Site
Spectral
Periods
(SDs/2.5)
Class
at 0.2 sec. (g)
at 1.0 sec. (g)
Coefficients
Response
(sec.)
Parameters
Ss
S,
I
Fa
F,,
SDS
SDI
To
I Ts
C
1.22
0.43
1.0
1.37
0.81
0.39
0.10
0.48
0.33
LIQUEFACTION ASSESSMENT
Soil liquefaction is a condition where saturated cohesionless soils undergo a substantial loss of
strength due to the build-up of excess pore water pressures resulting from cyclic stress
applications induced by earthquakes. Soils most susceptible to liquefaction are loose, uniformly
graded sands and loose silts with little cohesion.
The dense nature of the glacial till underlying the site effective precludes the development of
liquefaction. Therefore, special seismic design associated with soil liquefaction is not needed for
this project.
BUILDING FOUNDATIONS
We anticipate that the foundations supporting the new addition will be situated about 2 feet deep
along the east wall and about 6 feet deep along, the west wall below the existing grade. Based on
the subsurface conditions observed in the test pits, dense to very dense glacial till is anticipated
to be present at footing subgrade. As a result, the new addition may be supported on
conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the undisturbed glacial till.
We recommend using an allowable bearing pressure of 3,000 pounds per square feet (psf) to
evaluate the capacity of the existing footings and to design the new foundations. The
recommended allowable bearing pressure is for dead plus live loads. For allowable stress
design, the recommended bearing pressure may be increased by one-third for transient loading,
such as wind or seismic forces.
Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of 18 and 24 inches,
respectively. Exterior foundation elements should be placed at a minimum depth of 18 inches
below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations should be placed at a minimum depth of
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc 4 PanGE0, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
12 inches below the top of stab. The new footings should have a minimum of 6 feet horizontal
setback distance from the slope face.
Footings designed and constructed in accordance with the above should experience total
settlement of less than one inch and differential settlement of less than V2 inch. Most of the
anticipated settlement should occur during construction as dead loads are applied.
Lateral Resistance — Lateral loads on the building structure may be resisted by passive earth
pressure developed against the embedded portion of the foundation system and by frictional
resistance at the bottom of the footings. For footings bearing on the dense native soil or
compacted structural fill, a frictional coefficient of 0.45 may be used to evaluate sliding
resistance developed between the concrete and the compacted fill. Passive soil resistance may
be calculated using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf, assuming properly compacted
structural fill will be placed against the footings. The above values include a factor of safety of
1.5. Unless covered by pavements or slabs, the passive resistance in the upper 12 inches of soil
should be neglected.
Footing Drain — Footing drains should be installed around the perimeter of the new footings, at
or just below the bottom of the footings. Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain
lines be connected to the footing drain systems. Roof downspouts must be separately tightlined
to appropriate discharge locations. Cleanouts should be installed at strategic locations to allow
for periodic maintenance of the footing drain and downspout tightline systems.
Footing Subgrade Preparation - All footing excavations should be trimmed neat. The adequacy
of footing subgrade should be verified by a representative of PanGEO, prior to placing forms or
rebar. Any loose soils at the footing subgrade should be over -excavated and replaced with
structural fill or lean mix concrete. The over -excavation width should extend at least one-half
the over -excavation depth beyond the edge of footing.
The contractor should be aware that the site soils are moisture sensitive, and can become
disturbed and soft when exposed to inclement weather conditions. As a result, depending on the
weather condition at the time of footing construction, it may be necessary to place 2 to 3 inches
of CDF or lean -mix concrete on the exposed footing subgrade to protect against moisture.
FLOORS SLABS
It is our opinion that conventional concrete slab -on -grade floors are appropriate for this site. The
floor slabs may be founded on the undisturbed till deposits or on newly placed structural fill.
Interior concrete slab -on -grade floors should be underlain by a capillary break consisting of at
least 4 inches of compacted 1/4-inch, clean crushed rock (less than 3 percent fines). The capillary
break material should also have no more than 10 percent passing the No. 4 sieve and less than 5
percent by weight of the material passing the U.S. Standard No. 100 sieve. The capillary break
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc 5 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
should be placed on a subgrade that has been compacted to a dense and unyielding condition. A
I 0-mil polyethylene vapor barrier should also be placed directly below the slab.
Where concrete slabs will be subjected to traffic, such as at the driveway and garage areas, we
recommend that a 6-inch layer of well graded crushed rock, such as Crushed Surfacing Base
Course (WSDOT 9-03.9(3)) or Gravel Borrow (WSDOT 9-03.14(l)), be provided below the
slabs in -lieu of the 4-inch thick clean crushed gravel. The well graded crushed rock should be
compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density.
BASEMENT WALL DESIGN PARAMETERS
Basement walls should be properly designed to resist the lateral earth pressures exerted by the
soils behind the wall. Proper drainage provisions should also be provided behind the walls to
intercept and remove groundwater that may be present behind the wall. Our geotechnical
recommendations for the design and construction of the retaining walls are presented below.
Lateral Earth Pressures — The basement walls may be designed for a static lateral earth pressure
based upon an equivalent fluid weight of 40 pcf. A uniform pressure of 5H psf should be added
to reflect the increase loading for seismic conditions, where H corresponds to the buried depth of
the wall. The recommended lateral pressures assume level backslopes and that the backfill
behind the wall consists of a free draining and properly compacted fill with adequate drainage
provisions. Walls retaining sloping backfills or surcharge loads should be desi gned for higher
forces. If surcharge loads or building foundations will be located within a horizontal distance
equal to the height of the wall, lateral earth pressures will need to be increased based upon the
type and magnitude of surcharge.
Wall Foundation — See the Building Foundations section above
Surcharge — Surcharge loads, where present, should also be included in the design of retaining
walls. We recommend that a lateral load coefficient of 0.3 be used to compute the lateral
pressure on the wall face resulting from surcharge loads located within a horizontal distance of
one-half wall height.
Lateral Resistance — Lateral forces from wind or seismic loading and unbalanced lateral earth
pressures may be resisted by a combination of passive earth pressures acting against the
embedded portions of the foundations and by friction acting on the base of the foundations.
Passive resistance values may be determined using an equivalent fluid weight of 350 pcf. This
value includes a factor of safety of 1.5, assuming the footing is poured against recompacted
native soil or properly compacted structural fill adjacent to the sides of footing. A friction
coefficient of 0.45 may be used to determine the frictional resistance at the base of the footings.
The coefficient includes a factor safety of 1.5. If more lateral resistance is needed, battered pin
piles may be used.
0"22 17201 72nd Ave W Rpt.doc 6 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
Wall Drainage — Provisions for wall drainage should consist of a 4-inch diameter perforated
rigid PVC drainpipe behind and at the base of the wall footings, embedded in 12 to 18 inches of
pea gravel. Alternatively, a composite drainage material, such as Miradrain 6000 may be used in
lieu of the pea gravel. The drainpipe at the base of the wall should be graded to direct water to a
suitable outlet.
Wall Backfill — In our opinion, the existing on -site soil contains excessive fines and should not
be used as wall backfill. The wall backfill should consist of imported free draining granular
soils, such as Gravel Borrow (WSDOT 9-03.14(t)) or clean recycled concrete. In areas where
the space is limited between the wall and the face of excavation, pea gravel may be used as
backfill without compaction.
Wall backfill should be moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of optimum moisture
content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and systematically
compacted to a dense and relatively unyielding condition and to at least 95 percent of the
maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D 1557. Within 5 feet of the
wall, the backfill should be compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density.
Damp Proofing — The exterior of all basement walls should be protected with a damp proofing
compound.
INFILTRATION EVALUATION OF ON -SITE SOILS
Infiltration testing was not performed in the test pits due to presence of the dense, compact till at
shallow depth. As such, it is our opinion that infiltration of storm water runoff is not feasible at
the site. If on -site storm water runoff treatment is needed, a detention system may be required
for. For the roof downspout controls, in our opinion, a downspout dispersion system may be
used. The dispersion system should have a minimum of 15 feet setback distance from the
structures. A possible location of the roof downspout dispersion system is shown on Figure 2 for
reference. The on -site storm water treatment system (if needed) and the roof downspout
dispersion system should be designed by a civil engineer.
CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS
OVERVIEW
The main geotechnical aspects of the project construction will include:
0 Site preparation;
0 Temporary excavations;
* Foundation preparation;
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W RpLdoc 7 PanGE0, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
0 Installation of floor slabs, and
0 Site drainage and erosion control
The following briefly discusses relevant geotechnical considerations for the anticipated
construction operations.
SITE PREPARATION
Site preparation for the proposed project include striping and clearing of surface vegetation and
excavations to the design subgrade. All stripped surface materials should be property disposed off -
site or be "wasted" on site in non-structural landscaping areas.
Following site clearing and excavations, subgrade where structural fill, foundations, slabs, or
pavements are to be placed should be compacted'and observed by a representative of PanGEO. The
subgrade soil in the improvement areas, if recompacted and still yielding, should also be over -
excavated and replaced with compacted structural fill or CDF/lean-mix concrete.
TEMPORARY EXCAVATIONS AND EXCAVATION SHORING
As currently planned, an approximately 6-foot deep excavation will be required along the west
wall of the new addition. All temporary excavations should be performed in accordance with
Part N of WAC (Washington Administrative Code) 296-155. The contractor is responsible for
maintaining safe excavation slopes and/or shoring.
All temporary excavations deeper than 4 feet should be sloped or shored. It is our opinion that
unsupported open cut excavation is feasible since sufficient space is available. For planning
purposes, we recommend that temporary excavations be sloped no steeper than 1/4H: IV. If
groundwater seepage is encountered or the ground conditions are different than those described
in this report, the slopes may be flattened based on field observations. The cut slopes may also
need to be flattered in the wet reasons and should be covered with plastic sheets. We also
recommend that heavy construction equipment, building materials, excavated soil, and vehicular
traffic should not be allowed within a distance equal to 1/3 the slope height from the top of any
excavation.
FOUNDATION PREPARATION
Based on the subsurface information encountered, we anticipate dense till soil to be present at
the foundation level. If fill or loose/soft soils are encountered at the foundations levels, they
should be over-excavate'd to the bearing native soil and the resulting over -excavation should be
backfilled with compacted structural fill or CDF/lean-mix concrete. It should be noted that the
native till soil may be softened if exposed to excessive moisture and traffic disturbance.
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc 8 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0 0
Proposed Addition — 17201 72"d Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
Saturation and subsequent yielding of the prepared footing subgrade due to inclement weather,
disturbance, and poor drainage will require removal of the soft soil areas and replace with well -
compacted structural fill or CDF/lean-mix concrete. To protect the footing subgrade under the
unfavorable weather and disturbance, a layer of CDF/lean-mix concrete may be placed
immediately after footing excavation.
MATERIAL REUSE
Based on the test pits excavated at the site, the on -site fill and till soil should not be used as
structural fill and wall backfill but may be used in non-structural areas if they can be compacted
to the required degree in the dry season. The on -site soil should not be used as fill and backfill
in the wet season. If use of the existing soils is planned, the excavated soil should be stockpiled
and protected with plastic sheeting to prevent softening from rainfall.
STRUCTURAL FILL AND COMPACTION
In the context of this report, structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under roadways,
stabs, pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Based on our understanding of the project, we do
not anticipate the need for large quantities of structural fill. However, where needed, structural
fill should consist of imported well -graded granular material, such as Gravel Borrow (WSDOT
9-03.14(l). The structural fill should be moisture conditioned to within about 3 percent of
optimum moisture content, placed in loose, horizontal lifts less than 8 inches in thickness, and
systematically compacted to a dense and relatively unyielding condition and to at least 95
percent of the maximum dry density, as determined using test method ASTM D 1557.
EROSION CONTROL
In our opinion, the potential for erosion at the site can be adequately mitigated by employing
best management practices (BMPs). During construction, erosion control should include
measures for reducing concentrated surface runoff and for reducing the potential of off -site
sediment transport by protecting disturbed or exposed surfaces. As a minimum, erosion control
along the crest of the steep slopes located along the northern and eastern property lines should be
in -place prior to construction. The temporary erosion and sediment control (TESQ plan should
include the following:
• Where practical, maintain vegetation buffers around cleared areas.
• The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to prevent ponding
of water and to prevent runoff from reaching site slopes
• Adequately cover soil stockpiles and temporary cut slopes with plastic sheeting.
• Hydroseed or place straw in areas where grading is completed.
• Divert water away from the top of slopes.
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rpt.doc 9 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
- Use silt fences and/or straw bales around the site perimeter.
If possible, stage construction such that the amount of exposed soil and exposure time
is minimized.
PanGEO should review the TESC plan to verify our recommendations are incorporated into the
design. The erosion control measures should be inspected on a regular basis to verify they are
functioning as intended.
WET WEATHER EARTHWORK
In our opinion, the proposed site construction may be accomplished during wet weather (such as
in winter) without adversely affecting the site stability, so long as the work area is provided with
adequate ditching and drainage to prevent the accumulation of stormwater in foundation areas.
In addition, surface water must not be allowed to flow over site slopes.
Due to the fine-grained, cohesive nature of the site soils, the site is vulnerable to softening during
inclement weather, typically requiring extra expenditures for over -excavation and replacement of
the softened areas. Consequently, earthwork construction performed during the drier summer
months likely will be more economical. Winter construction will require the implementation of
best management erosion and sedimentation control practices to reduce the chances of off -site
sediment transport.
The site soil contains a high percentage of fines, especially at the anticipated footing subgrade,
and is considered to be moisture sensitive. Any subgrade soils that become softened either by
disturbance or rainfall should be removed and replaced with clean crushed rock or lean mix
concrete. General recommendations relative to earthwork performed in wet conditions are
presented below:
Site stripping, excavation and subgrade preparation should be followed promptly by
the placement and compaction of clean structural fill, capillary break material, or base
course material.
Footing subgrades must be protected from softening from rainfall or earthwork
disturbance. This may be accomplished by placing four inches of crushed rock or
two inches of lean mix concrete along the footing alignments.
0 The size and type of construction equipment used may have to be limited to prevent
soil disturbance.
During wet weather, the allowable fines content (material by weight passing the #200
sieve) of the structural fill should be reduced to no more than 5 percent, based on the
portion passing3/4-inch sieve. The fines should be non -plastic.
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc 10 PanGEO, Inc.
*Mr. Mark Loewen 0
0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 nd Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
The ground surface within the construction area should be graded to promote run-off
of surface water and to prevent the ponding of water.
0 Bates of straw and/or geotextile silt fences should be strategically located to control
erosion and the movement of soil. As a minimum, erosion control along the downslope
(north and east) property lines should be in place before construction.
SURFACE DRAINAGE
Adequate drainage provisions are imperative to improve the performance of the structures and
other site improvements. We recommend both short and long term drainage measures be
incorporated into the project design and construction. Surface runoff can be controlled during
construction by careful grading practices. Typically, this includes the construction of shallow,
upgrade perimeter ditches or low earthen berms to collect runoff and prevent water from entering
excavations or from flowing over the site slopes. All collected water should be directed under
control to a positive and permanent discharge system.
For post -construction, erosion can be controlled by revegetating disturbed areas and controlling
surface water runoff. Permanent control of surface water should be incorporated in the final
grading design. Adequate surface gradients and drainage systems should be incorporated into
the design such that surface runoff is directed away from structures and away from site slopes.
All collected water from surface runoff and from downspouts should be routed into a suitable
discharge system, and should not drain into retaining wall or footing drain systems.
ADDITIONAL SERVICES
To confirm that our recommendations are property incorporated into the design and construction,
PanGEO should be retained to conduct a review of the final project plans and specifications, and
provide construction monitoring of the foundation elements. The City of Edmonds, as part of
the permitting process, may also require geotechnical construction inspection services. PanGEO
can provide you a cost estimate for construction monitoring services on a later date.
We anticipate that the following additional services will be required:
Review final project plans and specifications
Verify implementation of erosion control measures
Observe and verify foundation subgrade
Verify the adequacy of subsurface drainage installation
Confirm the adequacy of the compaction of structural backfill
Other consultation as may be required during construction
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc I I PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0 0
Proposed Addition — 1720172 d Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
Modifications to Our recommendations presented in this report may be necessary, based on the
actual conditions encountered during construction.
CLOSURE
We have prepared this report for use by Mr. Mark Loewen and the project design team.
Recommendations contained in this report are based on a site reconnaissance, a review of
pertinent subsurface information, a subsurface exploration program, and our understanding of
the project. The study was performed using a mutually agreed -upon scope of work.
Variations in soil conditions may exist between the locations of the explorations and the actual
conditions underlying the site. The nature and extent of soil variations may not be evident until
construction occurs. If any soil conditions are encountered at the site that are different from
those described in this report, we should be notified immediately to review the applicability of
our recommendations. Additionally, we should also be notified to review the applicability of our
recommendations if there are any changes in the project scope.
The scope of our work does not include services related to construction safety precautions. 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.
Additionally, the scope of our work specifically excludes the assessment of environmental
characteristics, particularly those involving hazardous substances. We are not mold consultants
nor are our recommendations to be interpreted as being preventative of mold development. A
mold specialist should be consulted for all mold -related issues.
This report may be used only by the client and for the purposes stated, within a reasonable time
from its issuance. Land use, site conditions (both off and on -site), or other factors including
advances in our understanding of applied science, may change over time and could materially
affect our findings. Therefore, this report should not be relied upon after 24 months from its
issuance. PanGEO should be notified if the project is delayed by more than 24 months from the
date of this report so that we may review the applicability of our conclusions considering the
time lapse.
It is the client's responsibility to see that all parties to tl�is project, including the designer,
contractor, subcontractors, etc., are made aware of this report in its entirety. The use of
information contained in this report for bidding purposes should be done at the contractor's
option and risk. Any party other than the client who wishes to use this report shall notify
PanGEO of such intended use and for permission to copy this report. Based on the intended use
of the report, PanGEO may require that additional work be performed and that an updated report
be reissued. Noncompliance with any of these requirements will release PanGEO from any
liability resulting from the use this report.
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W RpLdoc 12 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen 0 0
d
Proposed Addition — 1720172' Avenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
Within the limitation of scope, schedule and budget, PanGEO engages in the practice of
geotechnical engineering and endeavors to perform its services in accordance with generally
accepted professional principles and practices at the time the Report or its contents were
prepared. No warranty, express or implied, is made.
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
0
Tct
Rym- 0"& aq i
Michael H. Xue, P.E.
Senior Geotechnical Engineer
Attachments:
Figure 1: Vicinity Map
Figure 2: Site and Exploration Plan
Siew L. Tan, P.E.
Principal Geotechnical Engineer
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W RpLdoc 13 PanGEO, Inc.
Mr. Mark Loewen Is
Proposed Addition — 17201 72dAvenue W, Edmonds, WA
February 12, 2008
REFERENCES
Dennis, B., Geotechnical Evaluation and Recommendations, Rear Deck Foundation — Top of
Slope Proximity, 1720172 nd Ave W, Edmonds, Washington, consultant report dated July 14,
2007.
Dennis, B., Geotechnical Evaluation — Foundation Recommendations, Loewen House Addition
Project, 17201 72"d Ave W, Edmonds, Washington, consultant report dated November 14,
2007.
International Building Code (2006).
Minard, J., (1983). The Geology Map of the Edmonds East and part of The Edmonds West
Quadrangle, Washington.
08-022 17201 72nd Ave W Rptdoc 14 PanGEO, Inc.
Approx. Scale: 1" = 1/2 mile
Proposed Addition VICINITY MAP
RinGE@ 17201 — 72nd Avenue W
1 0 C 0 0 V 0 R A T 2 0
Seattle, Washington
Project No. 08-022 JFiguTe No.
file.grf wl file.dat 2/12108 (16:27) MHX
Legend:
GM TP-1 Approximate Hand Excavated
Test Pit Location
Note: Base map modified from
site plan provided by Mr. Mark Loewen.
Proposed Addition
F�nGE@ 17201 - 72nd Ave W
1 0 C 0 0 P 0 N A T 0 D Edmonds, Washington
roperty
NTS
SITE AND EXPLORATION MAP
No.
08-022
re
2
'IM
Job # 602
SNOHOMISH HEALTH DISTRICT
DIVISION OF SANITATION
3011 Rockefeller Avenue, Everett, Washington
STREET FEE
APPLICATION FOR A SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM PERMIT
(Submit 3 Copies)
Permitto be issued to:-.. ..... Awk ............................ -------------- --------------------------- ............................................
17MI 72nd Ayeme
For installation at: (street address) ............... ---- ----------------- -------- We -at -------------------------------------------------------- --------------
Addition or Subdivision ...... RObinCISLIA, -------------------------------- ------------- -------------------------------- Lot .... S ......... Block ------------------
Type of Building: New--XX-.-- Existing ------------ Single family residence ------ 164- Number of bedrooms ------ .... 3__ ---------
Other: (specify -type or use) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ - ---------------- --------------------------
Builder ........ ftan Parker ...... -590i EhInneY N* seatie
--------- m ------------------ --------------------------- ------ ------- Address ---------- ----------------------- - ----- -------- ----------------------
Designer___A"__V&a1e tea
Asweig
- - ------------------------------------------- . Address --- 7301 .... Mb-Ple ----- SoMp— .... Eflumcis ... ......
SoilLog Hole No. ---_--_-------- ------- I—— .................................................
120 48" U BM S& SIV
-------------- ------------_--------------- ---------------------------------------------- ------ ........ : -------------------- ........ ....................................
Soil Log Hole No. 2 ------ 0_01.3" ------- --------- 5_"__32".___JA_.Rrn.to --- Gray --- Sa--SVgr
---------------------------------------- 32 - 14 ------ CemoaAied..Sand ---------------------------------- :--: -------------------------------------------------------------
Elevation of Water Table, if encountered. (Distance from. ground surface) ------ 11CM .................. 1 ..........................
Corrections to control surface water if needed --------- __ bm ------------- .......... __ ---- ...... ------------------------- .........................
Specify if any removing or grading of topsoil in field area ... ------ nme ----------------- -------------------------------------- -----------
....................................................................................................... ------------------------------------------- _ ---------------------------------------------------
Percolation:
Test Hole No. I —Average Rate ------- 34,6 ------------------_ ---------- ........ (Fall in minutes/inch-bottom 6" test hole)
Test Hole No. 2 --Average Rate ....... ------------------------------------------ (Fall in minutes/inch-bottorn 6" test hole)
Test Hole No-.�,�8— Average Rate ------ i - --------------------------------- �w ------ (Fall in minutes/inch-bottorn 6" test hole)
Average percolatiofi' rate on which to base drain field design ---- 3*J..___j3dAA=h ------_----- ------------------
Septic tank requirements based on present rules and regulations:
Septic Tank Size .......... W.0_: ......... gallons.
Amount of Square Feet of Disposal Field ------ �06 ------------------ --------
Signature — Designer ----- --------- -------------------------------- --- Date --- ---------- I ............
r
DO NOT WRITE BELOW THIS LINE (To be completed by Issuing A ncy)
Permit issued (date)----
--------- ------------------- ------------------ Permit Number ------ ------------------ ----------------
Remarks: .................. ..... __ ... ...........................................
BROWN
7 ND A VE
7zol
750
FVALK
P)-sml, Fj-
a
W, 6
T N
o
rok 3TAN 1Z),4t1VA
5901 PqlNlVey IV.
56-A771-4- , WA:SW.
Pe1P\Co4AT1,c'N TE'sTs -
c:v m /IV IINCq
0,4TA
0 - 12,, Dx, 8,Q,,V 5A - -51 - I-
4 1, 13 P Al -.5A -5 1
Q"' 5A "5
RAI �A,
bK- 1 -0 - SA - 'S I/q rL
LO
1-1.13 T6 L-IP-4y
A P-
IV E
7,:,2 - 4 o CEMEAIT.- s'iND.
/ NOTE:
L-Z
iV
.4
,A
A fiVr- 2P A �k4 #T
P-4 6 T PI-AIV el
/ 11-201
FT- OF
-rrzENr-H Ar.EA IN 2 .4ATJX4-
5
p Pp-,3v/ T I HT L ov JDR4Ps
A f f�q
3. FOU�v c�0&(TcuWs of=
0
V
T
T
PPAINPr'J-D AR�A-
7301 - 179th S. W.
EDMONDS, WASH114GTON PR 6-5880
PERCOLATION TEST
PLOT PLANS
PLAT DEVELOPMENT COORDINATOR
60Z .14
F�F 7L
REGARDING: 17201 - 72nd Avenue West 3 - 0 7/a5_
(address)
R E C 0 R D 0 F C 0 N T A C T S'
DATE NAME, PHONE NO., & COMMENTS
ADDRESS of CALLER
5/1/74 W. V. Johnson Certified Letter No. 406204 sent
requiring hook-up within 60 days.
5/21/74 Came into office and obtained
permit #4790.
6/19/74 Connection cowleted.
M"W n
S7,--�ZET* HLE
ACTION TAKEN
Letter received.,
INITIALS
TE
TE
TE
JI,
M'"IMORS' 31
1.bmijg n. s.N i-
4
X
S a :olvdMIS I D3H,,,',*.t:
JW
q�pog!,?!.�p, ol. q; POA!
�S
�Sa�p
N 0 Aj,
10 4.
110
El
P
<4
RECEIPT FOR CERTIFIED MAIL-300 (plus tage
303 '710.5
MA
I --'OR TE
JOHNSON, W. v.
CD
c\j
17201 72ND AVE W
0
E0MONDs, WASHINGTON
98020
>
11111,1111 btKWII;Zb rurt Auu, I,__
:'60WS
—WhOm
to arld date delivered ...........
With delivery to addressee 0111Y . ........
1 5
650'
2. Shows to whom, date and Where delivemd
350
..
With delivery to addressee,only : .. ......
ELIVER TO ADDVESS_ff_E� �ONLYI
856
—SPE—C, �AL:D11. I �VIR Y fee . .... ..
r-q.i re�d)
50d
PS Form NO INSURANCE CO
Apr. 1971 3800 VERAGE PROVIDEO�;�, (See other side)
NOT FOR INTERNATIONAL MAIL
oP01 1070 0-307-406
I v
1. LUT #8,.KUJJlNDALE V22 FZ32-63-
la.EASEMENTS: N/A
2. PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT NUMBER: 005598-000-oo8-oo.
3. VICINITY MAP (SEE THIS PAGE).
4. NEW CONSTRUCTION: 17201172ND AVE W EDMONDS, WASH. 98026.
5. OWNER:MARK & JANA LOEWEN - 17201172ND AVE W EDMONDS, WASH. 98026. 2o6.999-7156.
6. STRUCTURAL ENGINEER: ALEX K. MOROSEOS, PE iloo6 6oTH AVE W. MUKILTEO, WA. 98275 343-7517.
7. LEAD DESIGN PROFESSIONAL/CONTACT PERSON: MARK LOEWEN 209.999-7156.
�8. ZONING: RS-12,12,000 SQ.FT. LOT SIZE, 30% LOT COVERAGE Moo.00 SQ. FT.
9. PROPOSED LOT COVERAGE = 3,145.25/17,368.61 = 18%.
io. EXISTING BASEMENT = 1104-00 SQ. FT. PROPOSED UNHEATED STORAGE = 303.25 SQ. FT.
ii. EXISTING 1ST FLOOR = LIV: 1,183.67 SQ. FT., NEW LIV = 36o.25 SQ. Fr. TOTAL LIV = 1,543.92, NEW GARAGE: 921.00 SQ. FT.,
EXISTING DECK = 496-33 SQ. FT.,, NEW COVERED PORCH: 184-00 SQ. FI. TOTAL: 3,145.25 SQ. ITT.
12. NEW 2ND FLOOR = 1,128.27 SQ. Fr.
13. MECHANICAL SYSTEM: ft000 BTU (8o% EFF.) GAS FURNACE. 2ND FURNACE 6o,000 BTU (GAS).
14. HOTWATER TANK: (2) 5o GAL GS-650 YBRT (8o% EFF.) FOR DOMESTIC.
15. WIND EXPOSURE B, SEISMIC ZONE 3, SOIL: 2000PSF.
16. OCCUPANCY: GROUP R, DIVISION 3.
17. THIS BUILDING IS TYPE VB.
18. COMPLIANCE PATH: COMPONENT PERFORMANCE APPROACH OR PRESCRIPTIVE GLAZING IV.
ig. GLAZING U VALUE = .40 U VALUE OR SMALLER, DOOR U VALUE =.20, CEILING R VALUE=38, WALL R VALUE=21, FLOOR R VALUE 30, SLAB R VALUE=lo
MANUAL WINDOW VENTS W/ LABELED EXHAUST FAN OR METERED AIR AT FURNACE.
20. COMPLY WITH IBC 2003', IRC 2003', IMC 2003', IFC 2003', UPC 2003, VIAQ 2003, WSEC 2004.
21. LOT SLOPE = 22% E-W.
22. DRIVEWAY SLOPE: 13%. MAX DRIVEWAY SLOPE ALLOWED 14%
23. SET BACKS: FRONT 25'(1), SIDE lo'(2), BACK 20'(1).
24. IMPERV. SURFACE AREA: DRIVEWAY & WALKWAYS 917-00 SQ. FT. + EXISTING BUILDING 1956.93 SQ. Fr.(W/ EAVES) +
NEW BUILDING 1494-94 SQ. FT.(W/ EAVES). = 4368.87 SQ. FT.
25.+fMUkiTUALL; 29=375, Ivii"
FXLUING SLAB; 0 -13,
26. PROIDE F&T STOPS PER IBC.
27. MAX HEIGHT-25', MEASURED FROM AVERAGE ELEVATION OF UNDISTURBED SOIL AT CORNERS OF EXTENDED BUILDING RECTANGLE,
SUBJECT TO FIELD CHECK BY BUILDING DEPARTMENT.
28. TRANSIT SHALL BE SET UP FOR INSPECTOR AT FRAMING INSPECTION TO CHECK HEIGHT OF STRUCTURE.
29. LOT LINE & SET BACK STAKES MUST BE IN PLACE AT TIME OF FOUNDATION INSPECTION.
30. ADDRESS NUMBERS (6" HEIGHT ON APPR. CONTRASTING BACKGROUND) SHALL BE POSTED PLAINLY VISIBLE & LEGIBLE FROM STREET OR
ROAD FRONTING PROPERTY.
31- PROVIDE FIRE ESTINGUISHERS PER IFC STANDARD lo-1.
32. ALL NEW EXTENDED, RE -BUILT OR RELOCATED ELECTRICAL UTILITY & OR SERVICE SHALL BE PLACED UNDERGROUND.
33. ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE MATERIAL SCH 40 PVC OR EQUIV, SDR 35, N-12(ASTM D3TM D3034)-
34. ANY REQUEST FOR MODIFICATION, VARIANCE OR OTHER ADMINISTRATIVE DEVIATION (HEREINAFTER VARIANCE) MUST BE SPECIFICALLY
CALLED OUT & IDENTIFIED. APPROVAL OF ANY PLAT OR PLAN CONTAINING PROVISIONS WHICH DO NOT COMPLY WITH CITY CODE &
FOR WHICH A VARIANCE HAS NOT BEEN SPECIFICALLY IDENTIFIED, REQUESTED & CONSIDERED BY THE APPROPRIATE CITY OFFICAL IN
ACCORDANCE W/THE APPROPRIATE PROVISION OF CITY CODE OR STATE LAW DOES NOT APPROVE ANY ITEMS NOT TO CODE
SPECIFICATION.
35A. PLUMBING FIXTURE COUNT
EXISTING:, SHOWER-1, WATER CLOSETS i, LAVATORY-1, HOT WATER TANK-1, EXPANSION TANK-1, FLOOR DRAIN-1, BACKFLOW PROTECTION DEVICE-o,
PRESSURE REDUCTION VALVE-1, GREASE TRAP-o, WATER SERVICE LINE-1, HOSE BIB-2, DRINKING FOUNTAIN-o, BIDET-o,URINAL-o = lo.
EX ISTING FITURED THAT WILL BE MOVED: DISHWASHER-i, CLOTHES WASHER-1, SINK(KIT, LAUN) -1, WATER CLOSET-2, SHOWER 2, LAVATORY-2 = 9
36B. NEW: WATER CLOSET-2, SINK(KIT, LAUN) -1, SHOWER-1, LAVATORY-1, = 5-
37. GAS FIXTURE COUNT: FURNACE-2, HOT WATER TANK-1, COOKTOP-i, BARBAQUE-i, DRYER-i, FIREPLACE-l= 7.
COVER SHEET:
Pi SITE PLAN & BUILDING HEIGHT CALCS
VICINITY MAP, PROJECT INFORMATION
ARCHITECTURAL:
Ai ELEVATIONS
A2 BASEMENT FLOOR PLAN
A3 FIRST FLOOR PLAN
A4 SECOND FLOOR PLAN
A5 ROOF PLAN
A6 FOUNDATION PLAN
A7 1ST FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
A8 2ND FLOOR FRAMING PLAN
Ag ROOF FRAMING PLAN
Alo DETTAIL
STRUCTURAL DRAWINGS:
Si STRUCTURAL NOTES
'fop
DATUM POiNTO
302.10'
DOU6
(z.
30 1
527.99 ft�
)FOOED DKIVEN
25'
495.33
EXIOTINd DRIVEWAY
.1
t It
FROP05EO, ADI)ITION",
PRO 05
EXIOTING CAKPOKT
TO 13E KEMOVED ADD
W.M.
pc
6
Ok
GA5 LINE
------------ ---------- _4 --------------------
Zone
Setba BL(Luired Actual
Front
Sides
P,ear 22
Other ; 7q, L/
�jjt
ZT/4.02 ft
EXISTING
RESIDENCE
EXIOTING51"LA51-1 13LOCK5 (5TILL U15ED)
------ EX15TING GRADE
I`KOF05ED GRADE
by !sAL�'r=&zN8V_E
A 297.75
f32V5.-/--6
1) 299.25
/4=-249a.�k-.(vzl5_
IMPERVIOU5 CALCULATION5 (5_0_L[D.5URFACE!5)
EX151TING 5UILDING ROOF OUTLINE: 2174.02 5Q. FT,
(CON5TK. IN 1963) 912.
EX15TING DECK.-tee,.02 5Q. FT. (CON5TK. IN 1965)
EX15TING DRIVEWAY: 496.335Q. FT (CON5TK. IN 1965)
EX15TING PATIO: 54.00 5Q. FT (CON!5TK. IN 1963)
TOTAL EXISTING IMPERVIOUS: 2925.37 60. FT.
PKOFOOED ADDITION ROOF OUTLINE: 1022.64 5Q. FT.
PROP05ED COVERED PORCH: 120.83 5Q. FT.
rr\urL)or-v L.)r\iyi:,vv/"\T: 527. 9- 5u. F
FROF05ED PATIO: 49.595Q. FT.
TOTAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS: 1721.05 5Q. FT.
LOT COVERAGE:5145.25 5Q. FTA7368.615Q. FT. = 16%
T SLOPE: 22% E-W
%
EXISTING
DECK
j/
---------- t ----------- 1� --------------
A" 1?__�
1604
I
OCALE 1" 10'-0"
e
Braeniar
Dr
S'
01h.
>
WC35
My Pork
Perrim011e
part,
19rith
cq
Taro � Z - __
z
ul
z
u
4.2.07
REVISIONS:
7.20.07
1.10.08
PRINTED
1.10.08
TEMPORARY EROSION/SEDIMENTATION CONTROL NOTES
MW Mki
0=4
Ilk
'A
WKS
Wilt
[a),
1. LOA
14ILTEK FA13KIC
6ONTINUOUO
THROUGH
7/6" WA5HEP
GRAVEL,,
IN GKAVEL-LINEP TRENCH i, f
MOUND ON 130TH 61PE5 OF 2x the spacing of City of Edmonds Requirements
FENCE AT THE OURFACE
13UKY 130TTOM OF FILTER FADKIC IN TRENCH
FILTER FENCE PETAL
NOOCALE
FILTER FA13KIC
ILOW
-------------------- �7i -------------
A
r1A M
ROCK CHECK W-n 5ECTION
NOOCALE
1. Maintain natural vegetation for silt control where possible.
2. Temporary erosion sedimentation control facilities shall be constructed by placing siltation
control f Iters around swales (natural or manmade) and shall be maintained in a satisfactory
condition until such time that land clearing and/or construction of permanent drainage facilities
are completed and operational. Facilities shall then be removed and the site restored to the original
or final design condition.
3. As ccnstruction progresses and expected seasonal conditions dictate, more siltation control
course of construction, it shall be the obligation of the contractor to address any new conditions that
may be created by his activities and to provide additional facilities, as may be needed,
4. ESC Minimum Requirement - Stablization of Exposed Areas. All soils exposed by land disturbing
activities shall be staliblized by suitable application of BMPs, including, but not limited to, sod
hydroseeding, or other vegetation, plasitic covering, or mulching. All EIMPs shall be selected,
designed and maintained in accordance with the Manual. The exposed soils shall be stabilized
according to an approved timetalbe. (Typically, no soils shall remain exposed for more than two (2)
days from October 1 through April 30 and no more than seven (7) days from May 1 through
September 30)
5. Construction Access Route. Construction vehicle access shall be, whenever practicle, limited
to one route. Access points shall be stabilized with quarry spalls or cruched rack to minimize the
tracking of sediment onto public roads. If sediment is transported onto a road surface, the roads
shall be cleaned thoroughly at the end of each day. Sediment shall be removed from roads by shoveling
or sweeping and transported to a controlled sediment desposal area within 24 hours. Street washing
shall be allowed only after sediment is removed in this manner.
6. ESC Minimum Requirement - Manintenance. All erosion and sediment control BMPs shall be regularly
inspected and maintained by th owner to ensure continued performance of their intended function. All
maintenance and repair sahll be conducted in accordance with the manual.
7. ESC Minimum Requirement - Cut and Fill Slopes. Cut and fill slopes shall be designed and constructed
in a manner that will minimize erosion. In addition, slopes shall be stabilized in accordance with ESC
Requirement No. 2.
8, ESC Minimum Requirement - Storm Drain Inlet Protection. All storm drain inlets made operable during
construction shall be protected so that storm water runoff shall not enter the conveyance system without
first being filtered or otherwise treated to remove sediment,
9. ESC Minimum Reauirement - Protection of Adiacent Prouerties. Adiacent orooerties shal be orotected
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO BE
COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
OWNER/CONTRACTORS IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DAMAGE
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE REQUIRED
1\
) AS NOTED
INEERING
MAR 13 20C-3
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
Cl-ry OF FL)�fDNDS
....... I ......... I FILTER FENCEJ
o
�
RESUB
UILDING DEPARTMENT
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
Mug rm
STREE x @ NU
`
~
�
. �