The URL can be used to link to this page

17330 76TH AVE W.PDF111111111111 6206 17330 76TH AVE W 4% TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 27U4Q�D4014po BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): COVENANTS (RECORDED) CRITICAL AREAS:— Q-2D DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver W-study Required [] Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DA: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: PERMITS (OTHER): IUSUN5(1� "m 200201(00(aM) PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DA' SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) GEOTECH REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DS'rs\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant: k4AY)A9 Pf aui Property Owner: Critical Area File #: P-A 161 6161 D Q 3() Permit Number: Site Location: 17:�'�)D M�VAVOVV Parcel Number: Project Descriptio n: 9-0-WD�G<, d4ccV— +'KOuep� F Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above 1. There will be no alteration of a -Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40,220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. Critical Area Report Required'. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: 1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; Q\ S" 2. L// The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare /-�\ on or off the development proposal site; rc� V/ 0 3. The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; ck 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordancew.ith ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. V 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science*and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. F-I Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impact� on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in' ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number refer nced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). n R, S: via layliLd- nature Date Rev'iewer 91,9 V Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 12/16/2010 IZS) 75 0 HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. November 6, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085-21 Exteriorscapes Inc. 100 17 Greenwood Avenue N. Seattle, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. Cameron Scott Subject: GEOTECHNICAL REPORT ADDENDUM — CRITICAL AREAS WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE 17330 76"' Avenue W Edmonds, Washington Dear Cameron, In regards to City of Edmonds comments pertaining to the permit application for the deck and house reinforcement, we have prepared the following geotechnical report addendum as requested in Item 3 of the Planning Division's letter, dated September 16, 2013, as an addendum to our Geotechnical Report for this project, dated August 26, 2013. Herein we address the geotechnical suitability of deck and fence construction within the erosion and landslide hazard areas and buffers. We understand the deck and fence need to be regarded as "proposed" for purposes of permitting, as these were not constructed with permits. Critical areas criteria are addressed by section, below. ECDC 23.80.070 Buffer: Per ECDC 23.80.070, the Minimum Buffer for the erosion and landslide hazard areas would be 50 feet. No signs of slope instability were observed above the crest of the slope (boundary of the erosion and landslide hazard areas), such that, in our opinion, a Buffer Reduction to a minimum of 10 feet would adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical areas. Alteration: The proposed deck and fence will result in alterations to the erosion and landslide hazard areas. The deck will be constructed at the crest of the slope, mostly within the erosion and landslide hazard areas and partially within the buffer. Disturbance to the ground surface will be minimal. The footings will be supported with 2-inch diameter pin piles driven to refusal in dense soils, with a 3,000 pound axial capacity. Lateral support will be "PLICA/VT Copy NOV 0 , ZU13 BUILDING DEPARIMENT CITY OF EDMONDS 21312 30'h Drive SE Suite 110 Bothell, WA 98021-70 10 Tel: 425.774.0106 Fax: 425.774.2714 www.hwageo.com November 6, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 provided with Manta Ray (MR-88) anchors at each footing with Y2-inch anchor rods driven at an angle (angle to be determined in final design) into the slope. The deck foundation is designed to withstand potential shallow soil creep or raveling. At the end of construction, the sloping ground beneath the deck will be protected with erosion control matting and mulch. The fence will be constructed just below the crest of the slope (to northwest of deck) with standard construction of wood fence posts set in,concrete. In our opinion, the construction activities and long-term presence of the deck and fence per the locations and structural drawings shown in the current plans will not impact the erosion and landslide hazard areas, where constructed within those areas and buffers. In our opinion, the proposed deck and fence will not increase the threat of the erosion and landslide hazards to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; will not adversely impact other critical areas; are designed so that the erosion and landslide hazards to the deck and fence are -mitigated; and are safe as designed and under anticipated conditions. The proposed structures will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -construction conditions; will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and will not adversely impact other critical areas. Design Standards: In our opinion, the existing factor of safety for slope stability will not be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties with construction of the proposed deck and fence. The proposed. structures will be clustered at the top of the slope to minimize construction on the slope. Slope contours will not be altered and the deck foundations will be placed to conform to grade at each location in order to conform to existing topography. The proposed locations of the deck and fence at the top of the slope will preserve the majority of the slope and vegetation. The proposed structures will not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. No grading will be conducted for deck and fence construction. Also, the deck and fence will not increase the impervious surface of the lot. Vegetation Retention: No removal of vegetation will be required for construction of the deck and fence. Seasonal Restriction: No clearing will be conducted for this project. Point Discharges: Existing discharge pipes on the slope from roof downspouts and footing drains will be replaced with fused HDPE pipe, discharging beyond the toe of the slope. These will be anchored above the top of the slope and lay on the ground surface down the slope. 2012-085 AR.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. November 6, 2013 HWA Project No. 201.2-085 ECDC 23.40.240 Regarding unauthorized alterations to the erosion and landslide critical areas: As noted above, the proposed deck and fence will not reduce slope stability or increase erosion and thus the hazards are not increased relative to the pxedevelopnient condition. Also, the risk of personal injury resulting from the alterations will be eliminated by the geotechnical and structural design and construction. The erosion and landslide hazard areas have been improved by the removal of invasive vegetation and replacement with erosion control matting and native vegetation. 0-0 Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please call. Sincerely, RWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 7 Brad W. Thurber, L.G., L.E.G. Senior Engineering Geologist Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E. Senior Geotechnical Engineer i 2012-085 AR.doc 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 0 October 25, 2013 Windy Pfau 1733076 th Avenue IN Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Stream Classification for Edmonds Property Dear Ms. Pfau: This letter summarizes my findings on critical areas at your property in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. This 0.68-acre property (Parcel # 27040700401400) is located at 17330 76' Avenue W. It is my understanding that proposed reinforcement of a deck on your property may impact critical areas. In order to obtain building permits from the City of Edmonds, you need to know the classification and buffer width for a stream near the construction site. The results of a background review and site reconnaissance that I conducted are described below. Results of the Background Review The background review of existing information on this property includes but is not limited to: Snohomish County property records, City of Edmonds critical area maps, Snohomish County critical area maps, architectural drawings prepared by Exteriorscapes, a letter from the City of Edmonds Planning Division, and aerial photographs. I also reviewed the City of Edmonds Municipal Code for critical areas (Title 23—Natural Resources) to determine if there are any land use restrictions on this property (City of Edmonds 2013a). The critical areas identified by the City of Edmonds that I address in this letter include: wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas. I did not address critical areas such as, critical aquifer recharge areas and frequently flooded areas. The Exteriorscapes drawing indicates this irregularly -shaped property measures approximately 163 feet wide and 178 feet long (29,730 square feet). The southwest corner of the property is bisected by a stream (Terrace Creek) that flows from southeast to northwest (City of Edmonds 2013b). This stream continues northwest onto adjacent properties and eventually discharges into the Puget Sound approximately 1,500 feet downstream. The property slopes southwest toward the stream with elevations that r�nge from 195 feet at the eastern edge to 145 feet at the southwest corner. The Snohomish County critical area map indicates there are portions of the slope steeper than 33% (Snohomish County 2013), while the City of Edmonds topographic map indicates the slope is greater than 40% (City of Edmonds 2013b). The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.80.020) would classify this as a landslide hazard area (City of Edmonds r,-- p 2013a). The proposed deck reinforcements are located near the top of this steep slope apprdx,1mRtetj I I U . vtg 80 feet from the toe of the slope. GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES NOV 0 7 2013 BUILDING DEPARWENT M I I SIM EMS 1 i0NDS 937 NW 961h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmentaLcop CITY 00?� 0 Windy Pfau Page 2 Edmonds stream classification October 25, 2013 Results of the Site Reconnaissance I conducted a site reconnaissance of the property on October 23, 2013 to evaluate critical areas such as wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The steep slope between the deck and toe of slope has recently undergone restoration that involved removing invasive species, preventing erosion by staking down jute matting, and planting native shrub and herbaceous species. I located the stream near the southwest property corner and approximated the property lines on the north and east sides (see attached sketch). Terrace Creek has a wetted width that ranges from 2 to 6-feet for an average of 3 feet, and a depth averaging 2 inches. The fish habitat types mainly consist of low gradient riffle and lateral scour pools, and the average channel gradient is 2%. There is abundant woody debris in the channel that functions as weirs, bridges, and lateral logs. The substrate ranges from cobbles to silt with sand and small gravel dominating. The banks are incised 1 to 3 feet and vary from low banks to nearly vertical walls that confine the channel. There were some floodplain benches where woody debris confines the channel. There are also depositional areas where the channel widens and has a lower slope. I flagged the ordinary high water mark of Terrace Creek near the southwest property corner using lath stakes and ribbon labeled OHWM-1 through 12. Vegetation within the riparian area of the stream includes tree, invasive, shrub, and herbaceous species (see Table 1 for a plant list). The trees near the stream include red alder, big leaf maple, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. Invasive species in the riparian area include Himalayan blackberry, cherry laurel, holly, and English ivy. The shrub layer includes salmonberry, red huckleberry, and salal. The herbaceous species include lady fern, sword fern, nettles, skunk cabbage, creeping buttercup, and piggy -back -plant. Plants that have been installed on the slope as part of the slope stabilization and restoration include native shrub and herbaceous species. These shrubs include rhododendron, vine maple, red osier dogwood, redwood, red elderberry, wax myrtle, and Pacific willow. The herbaceous species include sword fern, lupine, and grasses. Some invasive species have started colonizing this restored slope such as bindweed and foxglove. Description of Critical Area Classification and Regulation The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.90.010.A) classifies four types of streams as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Terrace Creek is not identified as a shoreline of the state (Type S) or anadromous fish bearing stream (Type F). The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.90.010.A) makes a distinction between non-anadromous fish bearing streams that have perennial (Np) or seasonal (Ns) flow. Based on observations made during the site visit, I believe Terrace Creek is a perennial stream. According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.90.040.D), Type Np waters require a 50-foot buffer. All of the proposed construction involved with reinforcing the deck should occur outside this 50' stream buffer. There should be no short-term construction impacts to Terrace Creek because no riparian GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 96 1h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com 0 Windy Pfau Page 3 Edmonds streorn classification October 25, 2013 vegetation would be cleared and storm water runoff from the construction area would be stopped by the jute matting and other best management practices. Long-term impacts to Terrace Creek from stabilizing the slope and restoring the plant community are beneficial. The removal of invasive blackberry on this slope and planting of native shrub and herbaceous species will improve the riparian habitat. We recommend additional restoration of the riparian area along Terrace Creek in order to improve wildlife habitat. If you have any questions regarding these findings, please contact me at (206) 794-4520. Sincerely, Doug Gresham Professional Wetland Scientist Gresham Environmental Services Enclosure GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 961h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau Edmonds stream classification Page 4 October 25, 2013 Table 1 List of Plant Species Observed on the Pfau Property Stratum Scientific Name Common Name \NjSa Acer macrophylium Bigleaf maple FACU Alnus rubra Red alder FAC Tree Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU Thujo plica to Western red cedar FAC Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC Cornus sericea Red osier dogwood FACW Gaultheria shallon Salal FACU Ilex aquifolium Holly FACU Morella californica Wax myrtle FACW Shrub Prunus laurocerasus Cherry laurel N1 Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododenron NI Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC Salix lucida Pacific willow FACW Sombucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU Sequoia sempervirens Redwood N1 Vaccinium parvifolium Red huckleberry UPL Vine Hedera helix English ivy N1 Rubus armeniocus Himalayan blackberry FACU Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FAC Herb Athyriumfilix-femina Lady fern FAC Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed NI GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 96 1h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau Edmonds stream classification Page 5 October 25, 2013 Table 1 List of Plant Species Observed on the Pfau Property Stratum Scientific Name Common Name \NjSa Digitalis purpurea Foxglove FACU Lupinus latifolius Lupine FAC Lysichiton americanurn Skunk cabbage OBL Herb Polystichurn muniturn Sword fern FACU Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACIN Tolmiea menziesii Piggy -back plant FAC Urtico dioica Stinging nettle FAC a Wetland indicator status based on USCOE 2012 is defined as: obligate wetland (OBL), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAC), facultative upland (FACU), and not indicated (NI). References City of Edmonds. 2013a. Edmonds Municipal Code, Title 23—Natural Resources. Obtained from website: http://www.mrsc.org/codes.aspx City of Edmonds. 2013b. City of Edmonds critical area maps. Obtained from website: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us Snohomish County. 2013. Snohomish County critical area and property map. Obtained from website: http://gis.snoco.or,g/maps/snoscape/index.htm GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NIN 96 1h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau Edmonds stream classification Page 6 October 25, 2013 Photo 1—Steep slope between Terrace Creek and house looking north. Photo 2—Terrace Creek looking upstream at low gradient riffle habitat. GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NIN 961h Street, Seattle, INA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com nu Yf I, -44 15 k--1 'x' '4,V.-V 7.2 -ij AO; 1� 30 V Figure 1. �k—eich of Pfau property showing Terrace Creek. PLANNING DATA Street F=ile SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Name: VVfnay P+aLA Review Date: Site Address: 1 'J'5 3 () 7 (9"H AV& Permit Number: BLD - I':) Project Description: vif-OrCe- �1 0 W 5e Zoning: Comp Plan: Corner Lot: (YES Flag Lot: 6E NO) Small Site Plan&/ NO) ADU Created: (YES /00 LLA: CUP: Variance: Shoreline: Subdivision/Legal/Recording Number: Legal Nonconfo I rming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES 10 �CASA 1'9qq 003Q� �critical Areas Determination #: taylde5u4z, hasArd Study Required * C�IIC4 CP M Ou �X 4q 1, aV-A a re \A/P N 0-1 Waiver am -h tvLfl, e? (Ai� C, C"y e,� SEPA Determination: Req ired Setbacks --Nw Street* N Side: C) Side: D Rear: Actual etbacks Street: Side: � Side: > 1 10, 1 Rear: > Z) Ceta:ch:ed �Structures Rockeries -- etainingWalls 9 Fences/Trellises/Arbors Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation e > 30" Stairs 9 Covered Deck/Porch e > 30" Eaves Chimney/Fireplace Uncovered Unenc ose < 30" Deck/Porch/Patio Parking Required:. 2 Parking Provided: coverage Required: 35% Coverage Provided: Lot Area: Lot Co verage L4 Calculations: B ildinp He4qht Datum Point: Datum Elevation: Maximum Height: 25' Actual Height: , a wAum d -- ig / i ci (v I ex+c,n cA!5 acyvq,�p ,e�b rc f. i +C-1 *u?d,a4c-� �co+ccA fc-�p)ovet BWA- a co-:e a I I - (P - 1,0 '-,5 Ir u D ;t qrAVCR� 5,An&J i 0am (*IA) PlanReviewl3y: Gina Janice1c, Ass ociate Planner V 0, k~ CP a Lk Yl-"- A/ A k a A � 60 M F (2.1( (,v (, ) 0 . . 0 PLANNING DATA NAME: �'F-Pr i SITEADDRESS: 1'1,25�)O -T(P-r-" PROJECT DESCRIPTION: z\ A i _' REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: (16W/ No MAP PAGE: L40(e CORNER LOT: (Yes /& TE: u - o PLAN CHK#:c> i - L4 9�DU FLAG LOT: (Yes / ZONING: — CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #:j_q2LQL-oo-�>c) ElStudv Reaulred: Waiver Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: UFee UCheckllst OAPO list w/ notarized form U (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) El Exempt LjQ,%,.cA.,o SETBACKS: -rj - E& C,0 Required Setbacks: I* - I Street:_11mr-LI-eft Side: tO RightSide:_ tO' Rear 10' Actual Setbacks: 1 1 +_ AL-00 Street: -7',��' Side: -�)ro' RightSide: to' i�4cw�_ A9) Street map chocked for additional setback required? (ffijji No I D�A) U DETACHED STRUCTURES: L) ROCKERIES: U FENCESf'rRELLISES: Ll BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: STAJRS /DECKS: PARKING: Required: Actual:. LOT AREA: acl -I q C/o _r"j- LOT COVERAGE L;alculations: gy, j_40&aF_ le"71-Ig -+ q,4 LPX'4_Q -+ 10tA0 g� 0 eXLA_L� BUILDING HEIGHT: Datum Pointyr:40 CA -Tow P)ns7jN Datum Elevation: ' 110.7 Maximum Allowed: A,4rr Q- Z�tual Height: A.D.U. CREATED?: Yes) SUBDIVISION: W LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: LYes tM Plan Review By: NewBPP1anningDataForm.D0C DA ZoneA S.W. 1/4, SEC.7 T27N., RA E.W.M. 406 17107, 69Z 16920' 7003 7000 17122 4065 1'7co6 12 6 .. 11018 1 1-70%1 floo . .7 APr 17 t- 1. 11020 -- 1 140 o 00 17029 17/0 Nr aw. V, 1.7 IV 7 0 7//5 17110 ca 0 0 130 R. 171 1 v t. 7/2J )71jo M 9 17109 L71Z 1715o 17127 7170 17ZIl )7131 )7211 17207 I -jig, 17/11 i7n; 17218 to 17232 b 1720 2 2 17229 W217 e4 w kn D T. S.W. cr IRA 17320 1732,1 l3Z* cn 0 T to tj 94 0 aD '6 /7404 17402 1741* /-MI4- 17411 QO 01 a, a- - in 0% 'A C 4 C11 ka % 16 1742 00 OD pL.AC F in rjll=x ST. a vi F.-E ICK Go rl qo Z -0 % 1 *1 E Go OD 17f, saomom Is H COUNTY PAR K 14 OPMENT SERV'CrS M27 DEVE OITY OF FDMONDS A LiA 5 ISCO7 Lks /8000 co C'o CD it Fion, c—c c), t. i I .1 S 1 17 113CC I - — !� I IPCII 18617. < J91 elf q [ ls�' 1 lWJ7 18029 1 let 0 0 City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: Mark McDowell for Ken and Determination #: CA-99-30 Windy Pfau Project Name: I PC 01-436 Permit Number: Property Tax Acct #: 1 0727-044 014 Site Location: 1 1733076 Ih Ave. W Project Description Addition to existing detached garage to the northeast of existing residence Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): X There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; X The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; X The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; X The above findings are basedf on the following conditions of approval: Waiver is only for pending Building Permit. See attached site plan & survey submitted to the Critical Areas study pending rile (CA-99-30). Survey dated 10-01-01 by Greene Land Surveying, locates the top of slope. Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereby Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20.15B.040 (A)(1) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Star Campbell 1/02/2002 Name Signature Date 104.12' 63 1 0 Pcrl" .163.5' (E AIN It,�SANI SEVIER MAN \ iE) E) !--- \178' It KNOW (E) CONCRETE WALKS VIVIT E$t&TM GARAGE:70 SH OR 624 b0 fy DA PI, 170.7' AT TOP OF (E) CATCH BASIN ORA 12 +177 3 C;k GARAGIE 165A OF DRAINAGE N I PARKING AREA 70 IN OF AGE AMMON AND ,OUT[ AIN 70 EXIS CATCH .172" (N) SWALE PLAIMER CENTERLIME 7 IF (E) SWALE 1 3. + CENTERL04E DRIVEWAY .1 .000,00, 4174.8' ln4* ..'0000. 162.85' CAl (E)- EXISIM ,,,0000 NVEW104 SLIWACE 100010 (" WEW.903 I Par* 1/32- Ar— IM V-. VW-- AM 71 .21 VG" LESS (Elk=. -1 2n It" A2; IE Y A� 234-104 04 " PW= 1: ,MN= 2,111 " 419J�Tjg/ - (E ED "3,;,, 14S 31/32 JE) BACK AND SEE PAIIO Z— - ss (E) HEAT PLW PAD A� 12 IT TOTAL WERMCLIS SLWAC( (E IN IV" A— &201 .4 If A, I -Or RovEss (N) GARAGE AMMON af� 912 84 1 Pwk,- 132' (M) E ROOM ADDITION Ar� 128 sq It P*` 4jr-O' DRrVEVWk TO BE REMOVED Af� SM977 SIT IT Pv�. Ilr-6 71Y32" y r WALKWAY TO BE REu0vW _�w- 234.104 sq IT Pwim- 135'-3 TOIAL PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS SMACE Ar— 1'040 K ft. If P�i— 675'-S 1/32' LOT SIZE A, 29729.661 ST Sw LOT COWRAGE 27!rlt 4 o ERAS%` LOT SLOPE - IO-Z PLOT PLAN 1"=20: 0.+171. D-1171.2' GRAOM it 6CS, AVE GRAM-171.r ACTUAL-4103.95 M&VMUM.+IB6.2' RECEIVED 4 2001 -STREET FILE DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTA. . CITY OF EDMONDS Ll LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED SURVEY PROJECT 17330 76th AVE WEST MCDOWLL DESIGN BUILD INC SHEET TEITLE TAX ASSESSORS PARCEL f. 072704-4-014-0004 EDMONDS WA 98026 95266 SAND POINT WAY ME TAI PLOT PLAN T ZONING: RS 12 O%NERS; KEN AND MNDY PFAU 1 SEATTLE WA 98115 1 I DATE I SHEET kjqj DESIGN LOADS: SEISMIC ZONE 3, EXPOSURE 8, 80 MPH- ADDRESS: SAME AS ABOVE 206-729-6294 ROOF. IOPSF DEAD LOAD, 25PSF LIVE LOAD - 35 PSF PHONE.- 425 775 0289 MCDOWDBO44DJ -- 12111107 113 1 3 it 1j, 9 Im" p It 0 AP- 4�' Ilk IL P, f L UNA 1901� 4 AI ""r- H� % j I!! lit, i4h it J., I� 41 1, 41 I; :!V A "I, it vi,Ill�i ,I P, I 111411, p"I �Lj 1p IN :1 4. 4" 1, OWT I� jI:, III gp�� T P4."10 ell 14 A� IN. IV�I 1:4 I lwl 4 N :6 od x" Woo, 1'� I e �04 7'i 'it t :.,p %�LI 5- 4j / 1r, 4 0 RECEIVED CRY of Edmonds DE,�, 14 2001 Critical Areas Determination DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR- CITY OF EDMONDS Applicant: John McPhee Determination CA-99-30 Project Name: Permit Number: Site Location: 17330 — 76 1h Ave W. Property Tax Acct 0727-044-014-00 Project Description: Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a Steep Slope Hazard Area pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Also, during the site inspection, it was found that the site appears to contain or is adjacent to a Category 2b Stream called "Talbot Park Creek". Talbot Park Creek does not appear to contain salmonoids. Steep Slope To determine if a Steep Slope Hazard Area does exist, a topographic survey pre . pared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope over 40% with more than 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50 foot buffer is required from both the top and toe of the slope. A 15 foot building setback is required from the 50 foot buffer. For development of any kind which is proposed within the critical area, 50 foot buffer or 15 foot buffer setback, it must be shown that the development will not adversely impact the Critical Area or its buffer, by doing one or possibly both of the following depending on the outcome of the study: 1. For development proposals which will occur within the -50 foot buffer, but no closer than 10 feet from the top or toe of the slope, the 50 foot buffer requirement may be reduced to 10 feet if a study is completed by a licensed geologist or geotechnical engineer which clearly demonstrates that the proposed buffer alteration will have no adverse impact upon the site, the public or any private party. All Critical Area Studies must be completed by a licensed Geotechnical Engineer (as defined in ECDC 20.15B.020.Y) or under a three party contract where the City hires the professional required, and the applicant pays for the study (pursuant to ECDC Section 20.15B.140). 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B.040C. All proposed development of the subject lot must meet the requirements of Chapter 19.05 (Building Permits - Earth Subsidence and Landslide) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Stream Also, during review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain and/or is adjacent to a Class 2B Stream(without salmonoids) pursuant to Chapt er 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required to satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing the following: 1. A Critical Areas Study is required to delineate the stream and identify its buffers. Submit a survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor delineating the top of the stream bank, the required 25-foot critical areas buffer, and the 15-foot setback to any proposed development. If culverting or redirecting the stream is proposed for development of the site, please have Department of Fish & Wildlife address this matter as well. 2. If development must occur within the critical area, buffer, and/or buffer setback, and is not identified as an exception per ECDC Chapter 20.15B, a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance must be obtained pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170A and 20.15B.040C. If the property owner wishes to apply for a specific development permit which they feel would not impact the Critical Areas located on the site, they may su, bmit their proposal to the Planning Department for review. If the Planning Department rinds that the proposed development permit will not adversely impact a Critical Areas or its buffers, a conditional waiver may be issued on a project by project basis. Name Signature I Date 2 WILE NO. 3Z7 Critical Areas Checklist -------------------------------------------------------------- Site Information (soils/topography/hydrology/ve 1,-tation) 1. Site AddressiLocation: 4- 1733 0 -7 � 3�(T A Q E 2. Property Tax Account Number: 0 7,�,-7 _0 q-Y 0 n (n Ll 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 1 5 �' 4. Is this site currently developed? X yes; —no. H0, 4. If yes; how is site developed? 9 - Vlef 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. - Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). ,-'�Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% andless than 30% ( a vertical rise of I 0-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).. Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of I 0-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course. 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year- round? Flows are seasonal? (What time of year? 7 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs mixed urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc) ? 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: 7 _ ------------------------------------------------ For City Staff Use Only ---------- --- ----------- ------------ I. site is ZoneV ... ...... 2. :.:SC I $.-mapped.soi1..ty-pe(s.)?,., 1144 3. Vetla n*d: inventory:or.C.A.. map indicates. wetland:presen on e - )7:: - , ; 1 .1 . t sit ? Critical Areas. inventory. or.C.A.map indicates Critical. Area:on site2.. Site withihAesignat d eart su*6side . nee landslide haza�&4j6zi? i: i/jb, . se ite:designaied on:;the::Environrnentally:Sensit-ive Areas Map? ^ca_chk.doc; Rc� 10/03/97 0 10 RECEwEED City of Edmonds FEB 16 1999 PERMiT Q01 INTED CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST The 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 a development permit to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, 'or may be. 0 , present n 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). An applicant, or his/her 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 deten-nination 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 infor m-ation (e.g., site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site I have completed the attached Critical Areas Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner/Applicant: C- T) 14 �--- cz , do H-vo Name 1-7 -_3 �� CD -7 (o -A J Street Address Date Applicant Representative: Name Street Address city State Zip Telephone Signature Date (over) c:recepdon\jana\cac1.doc City of Edmonds Critical Areas- Determination Applicant: Mark McDowell for Ken and Determin ation #: CA-99-30 Windy Pfau Project Name: PC 01-436 Permit Number: Site Location: 1 17330 76" Ave. W Property Tax Acct #: 1 0727-044 014 00 04 Project Description: Addition to existing detached garage to the northeast of existing residence Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): X There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; X The development proposal will not impact the Critical Area in a manner contrary to the goals, purposes, objectives and requirements of the Critical Areas ordinance; X The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; X The above findings are based on the f�llowing conditions of approval: Waiver is only for pending Building Permit. See attached site plan & survey submitted to the Critical Areas study pending file (CA-99-30). Survey dated 10-01-01 by Greene Land Surveying, locates the top of slope. Based on the above findings and conditions, the requirement for a Critical Areas Study associated with this development permit is hereb y Waived, as authorized by Chapter 20. 1'5B.040 (A)(1) of the Edmonds Community Development Code. Star Campbell 1/02/2002 Name Signature Date p 0 104.12' 63 T 0 P.11._e .165.5' ;`,(E) HOUSE SAN SEWER MAIN REMO%f (E) C CNCRM WALKS RT Et NG 2 G To MAGE:ISTI FSHOP 624 ho 7 .... OA U PT. 17D7' AT TOP OF (E) CATCH BASIN ORA .172' ......... vo OF DRAINAGE 012 SO FT sw IN A AULT PARKING AREA 70 TH OF AGE ADDITION G AND ROUTE DRAIN 70 EAST , CATCH BASIN 1 .3 714 172' (N) SWALE PLANTER t CENTERUNE (E) SWALE +173.3 .1 2.5' --CCNTCRUNE ASPHAU I DRIVEWAY .166, 174.8' + 173.4' foe 00*01UPERVOUS SURFACE CALCS (E)' EXISTING (N). NEW 0 )E) 1401JSE A 1871.903 s; I! Perim -4 9/32' GARAGE S2 0; (E 4 sq it 1 -010' ASP.AL.1 DR��-.AAY Are- W70.211 m IT Perim- 36 E�PLANTER I. OR 'W + 174.6' LESS ( , WAY Arco 253.844 sq 11 PwIm- E) CONCRETE WALK Y = 234 104 tpci It Per f (3R (%COVERED FRONT PORCH Are 112.179 " it Perim- ) BACK AND SOX PATIO A,.:: 431-15 , it Pim- 1-3 - 3 1/32- (E) HEAT PUMP PAD Are— 12 64 It Perim- 14'-Cr Ss XHO TOTAL IMPERIAOUS SUR ACE (E) IN 1977 Are- 8,201 u It F (N) GARAGE ADDITION Are— 912 sq 132'-0' (N) EXE ROOM ADDITTON A — 12a Per— 48'-0' SE sq Or VEWAV (EA DRI TO BE REMOVED Are— $20,977 q It Per— lir-6 17/32 WAUI-�l 10 BE REUO\ED A,w- 234.104 Sq It Pellm- 136 - 3 7/8- 701AL PROPOSED IM�ER�OUS SURFACE Are— 1.040 K, it SZE A— 29729.661 sq it Per'— 675*-5 1/32- 76th ST SW LOT IOLVOEIRA[GE 27-5% LOT SLOPE A 13— .�l 4', PLOT PLAN 1"=20: C- 70'.. "' 0- . 171.2' rRADING CALCS AVE GRADE-.171.2' 20 YDS E 7 ACTUAL-4185.95 UANIMUM.1186.2' RECEIVED r 4 2001 'REat" FILE APPROVED BY PLANNING DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTA. CITY OF EDMONDS LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED SURVEY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL J. 072704-4-014-0004 ZONING. RS 12 DESIGN LOADS: SEISMIC ZONE 3. EXPOSURE B. 80 MPH- ROOF: IOPSF DEAD LOAD, 25PSF LIVE LOAD = 35 PSF PROJECT 17330 76th AVE WST EDMONDS WA 98026 OWERS. KEN AND MNDY PFAU ADDRESS: SAME AS ABOVE PHONE: 425 775 0289 MCDOWELL DESIGN BUILD INC 95266 SAND POINT WAY NE SEATTLE WA 98115 206-729-6294 1 Ao(CDOWr)8044DJ SH�ET TITLE PLOT PLAN —DE TAILS DA TE 12111101 SHEET f 1 113 104.12' 42* 63 1 0 PQUo_r 4165.5' (E) TAIN ------------------- (E HOUSE ,,S" SEWER MAIN E) P 0 :17D.7- I E) t ; \ '178' +172.2t . ..... REMOVE (E) ONCRETE WALKS VERT E*ISMG 2 Sir GARAGE SH : To 6 �O 24 FT .... DA Pl. 170.7' AT TOP Or (E) CATCH BASIN GRA 912 +171 .172' 3 CAR GARAGE 165A -------- 0 NTE OF DRAINAGE 0 2 SO FT SW IN A LT PARKI G A EA 7 IN OF ITT R A, AND ROUTE DR N TO EMS G CATCH BA N ........ ...... . . 172' (N) SWALE PLANTER CENTERLINE + +173.3' +1 2.5** __—(E) SWALE + + CENTERLIKE ASPHAULT DRIVEWAY 174.8' + 173.4' 162.85 ..'00- IMPERMCUS SURrACE CALCS (E)- EMSTING (N). NEW (E�'G= A_ 1571-S01 .1 11 P..- 221-1 ./32' A,w" 624 Q it Perim- IW-W ASR.ALUT DRIVEr" E7'.TER IN DRIVE A, AT— 5170.211 eq it Pai . ';7 9/ AI� Art It P.I�% �* LESS ( 25a.BU , ! 1/3216 + 174.6' E) CONCRETE WALKWAY A,- 234.104 &4 it Perim- I (E�( M 112,172 it P.Im- *1M./74 COVERED FRONT PORCH T ) BACK AND SIDE PATIO Ar 43 -15 q"n Piim. 1.3-3 I/M folk (E) HEAT PUMP PAD Ar= 12'sci it Pw� 14'-D' X Ell .00 E T07AL IMPERVIOUS SUR'ACE (E) IN 1977 A,- 8,201 1111 H (N) GARAGE ADDITION A— 912 sq it PwIm- 132' (N) EXERCISE ROOM ADDITION A,� 128 %4 it Perim. As'-o" �E DRIVE Y 70 BE REMOVED A,e- $20.977 sq Perim- 11 - 6 1 WA WA To BE P MOVED 1 3 7y LKWAY E A,w- 234.10A sq Pe,l 367 a�2" 7 TAL PROPOSED IMPERVOUS SUR ACE Are,= 1,040 ,,, it ZE A—= 29729.661 it P�, 675'-5 1/32 76th ST Sw LOl' 512E LOT COIER�G 27-57, A�lrlj� LOT SLOPE !D% 0 13 3%CS 71.4� DRIVE -31 PLOT PLAN 1"=X' D-.171.2' IRADI=� AVE GRADE—t7l.2* "0 YD$ C."T A TUAL-185.95 LIAMMUM-186.2' RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS APPROVED BY PLANNING LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTACHED SURVEY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL f. 072704-4-014-0004 ZONING. RS 12 DESIGN LOADS: SEISMIC ZONE 3. EXPOSURE B, 80 MPH- ROOF: IOPSF DEAD LOAD, 25PSF LIVE LOAD = 35 PSF PROJECT 17330 76th AVE WEST . EDMONDS WA 98026 OWNERS; KEN AND WINDY PFAU ADDRESS: SAME AS ABOVE I PHONE. 425 775 0289 MCDOWELL DESIGN BUILD INC 95266 SAND POINT WAY NE SEATTLE WA 98715 206-729-6294 1 MCDOWDS044DJ SHE T TITLE PLOT PLAN-D TAILS DA TE 12111101 SHEET 1 113 cV APPLICATION The City of Edmonds for SIDE SEWER PERMIT EASEMENT NO. _ ......... ........ ...................... NEW CON4TRiUCTION E REPAIRS 0 LID NO - ------------------ ASMT. No. ------- OWNER ---- -------------------- -------------------- ------- ................... CONTRACTOR ---- -------------------------- --------- ------- PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS ---- -- ---------------------------------------- ----------- --------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No - ---------- ....... ------------------- BLOCK NO - ---------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- NAME OF ADDITION w :7 141 r-�-> =�> t--- J=> Approved: DATEz ...... 77--- By .. . ....................... ..... .... 7�- it /75 4 CITY OF EDMOND-0,1� SIDE SEWER PERMIT WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT ar PERMIT Call 775-2525 for side sewer inspections BEFORE covering any portion of the const*ructi.n.) Inspection will be provided within 24 hours after requst. NO Sat., Sun., or holiday Inspe.to ns. Y&:2 L ADDRESS LOCATION OF CONSTRUCTION 4., PROPERTY LEGAL DESCRIPTION ......................... ................................................... ........................................ .................................................................. .................................................. . ...................... . ........................................................................ . ............... .................................. . .................................................. - ---------------------------------------------------------------- OWNER AND/OR BUX ER_._..._'.7 LD ,; ................................. . .................................. . ....................................................... A 1 1 .3 -1, _', 'i I . , � . t I -RACTOR'S NAME & ADDRESS ...... 11 z �- t 0,, � 2 2 C' . ................................................ ........................... .............................. . .. . ....................................................... n .. . ..................................... 4.% A. Pernlissio Is granted -------- - f . ........ 119 ... Y,', for repair and/or connection of a side Sewer to the City sawtary wer 9m In accordance with City of Edmonds ordinances. ATTENTION IS 47ALLED TO THE FOLLOWING: NOTE No. I —The owners 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 ama. Do not cover any Portion of sewer before It has been inspected. NOTE N0. 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 regaxding 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 she line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2 No bends in grade xper 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 Im raper work which may develop within one year of completion. NOTE. No. fi---It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is Provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the maln sewer or its appurtenances ex ert the pipe into the wye. cept to in - DISAPPROVED ;/,D pl - --------------------------- ........ By ................ Date ............ . . ................. ................ D ............ ................. BY ................ APPROVED DR.__ ------------- . ..... 7 ............ . .... ...... ......................................................... Remarks: ....... . ...... . .............................. . ................................................................................................... .... ... ............ ................................................... . .......... ............................................................................. . .................................. ................................... ............ BOTH Permit Copies MUST Be Signed By Owner of Firm Performing Construction PRIOR To Request For Inspection ---- -- 6-t ------ hereby certify that the side sewer installation constructed under this permit .-:on Was i'Stalledlgwner a tracting Firm Performing Construct] in accordance with all governing ordinances of the City of Edmonds. a Dated this ....... 1� ......... .... fty of ............ 19, ...................... ,7 V V Check BEFORE you dig for: Water Gas Telephone Power 0, Sewer Other W: % t APPLICATION The City of Edmonds for EASEMENT NO - -------------------------------------------- SIDE SEWER PERMIT NEW CONSTRUCTION 1�9 REPAIRS LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO - ------------------ OWNER .... 0�<-IVAC ..... ki�zv. - j,;� - -0� ....................... CONTRACTOR ..... Prj�- 'All ----- I- :7� -,t% I- . -17,- ------------------ PERMIT NU. -!SA- a-:7- JOB ADDRESS ..... ---- ---- 7-a-- ----- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO - -------------------------------------- BLOCK NO . .................................... 0 9 NAMEOF ADDITION ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ qq. Approved: DATE............................................ By ..................... -------------------------------------- 11/75 'Part -ie -i I i a If o -he South 11'a. o' ti - S t-I L ri hall- of th-e Northeas'- quarter of. .the NortIt L 0 -ilist quarter of Section 7, I tf the Southc To,,qnship ?7 N6r'L,-h, - Ranlie 4 E, a F, 11 D I. described as f ollo-ws: ig a B e. g i n n, �L -z t a poi'nt on, th(.:.. I -Tor -[-_h i. n e� o:'L: said South half- of Une S)O�Ilth h h 1 f ot" th e N 0 a c i a t: c r of tlae_ I'lor L S ou th e- a t (�uar�.er that is distan'C p'-., 0 r L i 1 3 8 5 "' 5 74.0.95 I lc 017a the Nor L_ !as corner ereof`;. thencc� fro�-Li a id TD (ol- -.-I o col t5ue iIortn u b E_ *-'* ' I - ---I- �- . - �) s t 173 to to,�! North2as-� e o r I e- s s coriner ' of land beii,,q purciflased by T'k!sl(-�ty C. Eng.str r: - fe ui-der contrac- c f om and wi- sale f , e d -L Or record under Audii.tor 's, -I:i. I e N o 15443213; thence Sou-LL--h 9012'4-5" was- L_ t1ne F,'a-sterly .1-ine-of said Fnas-ror., tract, a distanCe of 10,1.12 fcet7 thence South 7EjOOP 40" V est 0.58 feet to the Northeast corner of an d being purchased bv Rodnev D. Vloogerd and �,I:j. c� le -lie f I _d f or record undcr under contract of s c Au.ditor's file No. 1373521; 'C.�Ieace Sout'li 22 4712511 East 65.42 feet Soll -h-,- LI - . L_ L_ to , tLhQ a3t corner T said ooge�xd tkact; UIC-Mcc-I South 8�-53' Eas t .0 f s W alo-rig the South line of said Sout-h lizilf of the of the Nporl-h half or -the Northeast South hall- qu. arter Of the Southeast quarter,, a distance o 165' feq'.,t, more or less, to ifi,�ersecL z--t line running South 0044145" West froni the point of beginning; thence Nor th 0`44'45" East 162.G5 feet to the p oi n t of be(r-',n7 IrIr ; ana an n -r7ess and egress over, long and upon -he for ing. a following: -)u-'-Ii 12-.9 f eet of the F,,ast' 19' f c-, (A) The SL L_ _eL o.f the*Sbuth half of South half of NortCh half r"F T�l st quartr ,'r. S 0 u th e quarter c) S-ection 7,. To-1.7,riship 27 1,7orth, RI -Inge 4 EXCEPT road or str e� e along the Eas t j-, thereof.' -c land 22.9 -Ecet- in w id th the (B) A strip o-L L S, e outh-'line Of Which* is d scribed Beg-ilining at a pO_-nt on. the' South L line of the Sout'h half, of the South- L th h a' 1 f of the North half of the Nor -quarter of the Southeast' cjt�arter east of Section 7, Township 27 North, n a -ge 4 East, that is North 880531 West 191..,feet fro-m the South-east corner' of a said Sou-�h h If of - the South half 'of rth half Of, the Northeast quarter the No quarter;, --thence 'f rom of,thb Southeas" s a-; d, n -,C 17 n- nue N o r t-h pC, of L_g4 4. 8S*53' West, along the South Li n e o f 63-4 f eet;, said'subdivision, a distance' o- thence North 81clog, llest92_84 feet to -a ng .11it on z t curve;. thence We'sterly alo, PO a.cury to the lef t, radius of - 472.22.feet, -tangen r th off ' a t bearing No. 76016 ' Wes t an akc�distance 0 th e South of 255.5 feeU L_ th haif of the South'half line,of the Sou of. the North half o f s,��, i d Northeast qTuarter t of'the. So,.,.theas, .quarLer.; thence 'North 680 '53.' West 14.1.5 feet to,the East line �of, the above described main tract and said linEi description. All sj- alte in the County of. Snoh_on-,jsIj, St- te 'of Washington-, recw�ds of ZSn o h o ,.i s h Co u n t- Waslainc ton, y t EXHIBMA 41 Fog 5/��O -74 JIN IA, IoN 3 . . . . . . . . . . . . �j A)o Co r 00 Tri v U LTU"a, I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. November 6, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085-21 Exteriorscapes Inc. 100 17 Greenwood Avenue N. Seattle, Washington 98133 Attention: Mr. Cameron Scott Subject: GEOTECHNICAL REPoRT ADDENDUM — CRITICAL AREAS WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE 17330 76th Avenue W Edmonds, Washington Dear Cameron, In regards to City of Edmonds comments pertaining to the permit application for the deck and house reinforcement, we have prepared the following geotechnical report addendum as requested in Item 3 of the Planning Division's letter, dated September 16, 2013, as an addendum to our Geotechnical Report for this project, dated August 26, 2013. Herein we address the geotechnical suitability of deck and fence construction within the erosion and landslide hazard areas and buffers. We understand the deck and fence need to be regarded as "proposed" for purposes of permitting, as these were not constructed with permits. Critical areas criteria are addressed by section, below. ECDC 23.80.070 Buffer: Per ECDC 23.80.070, the Minimum Buffer for the erosion and landslide hazard areas would be 50 feet. No signs of slope instability were observed above the crest of the slope (boundary of the erosion and landslide hazard areas), such that, in our opinion, a Buffer Reduction to a minimum of 10 feet would adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent developments and uses, and the subject critical areas. Alteration: The proposed deck and fence will result in alterations to the erosion and landslide hazard areas. The deck will be constructed at the crest of the slope, mostly within the erosion and landslide hazard areas and partially within the buffer. Disturbance to the ground surface will be minimal. The footings will be supported with 2-inch diameter pin piles driven to refusal in dense soils, with a 3,000 pound axial capacity. Lateral support will be 21312 30th Drive SE RESO13 Suite 110 U mothell, WA 98021-70 10 Tel: 425.774.0106 NOV 0 7 2013 Fax: 425.774.2714 t= www.hwageo.com BUILDING DEPAR-IMENT I L t CITY OF EDMONDS 0 is November 6, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 provided with Manta Ray (MR-88) anchors at each footing with Y2-inch anchor rods driven at an angle (angle to be determined in final design) into the slope. The deck foundation is designed to withstand potential shallow soil creep or raveling. At the end of construction, the sloping ground beneath the deck will be protected with erosion control matting and mulch. The fence will be constructed just below the crest of the slope (to northwest of deck) with standard construction of wood fence posts set in concrete. In our opinion, the construction activities and long-term presence of the deck and fence per the locations and structural drawings shown in the current plans will not impact the erosion and landslide hazard areas, where constructed within those areas and buffers. In our opinion, the proposed deck and fence will not increase the threat of the erosion and landslide hazards to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; will not adversely impact other critical areas; are designed so that the erosion and landslide hazards to the deck and fence are mitigated; and are safe as designed and under anticipated conditions. The proposed structures will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre -construction conditions; will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties; and will not adversely impact other critical areas. Design Standards: In our opinion, the existing factor of safety for slope stability will not be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties with construction of the proposed deck and fence. The proposed structures will be clustered at the top of the slope to minimize construction on the slope. Slope contours will not be altered and the deck foundations will be placed to conform to grade at each location in order to conform to existing topography. The proposed locations of the deck and fence at the top of the slope will preserve the majority of the slope and vegetation. The proposed structures will not result in greater risk or a need for increased buffers on neighboring properties. No grading will be conducted for deck and fence construction. Also, the deck and fence will not increase the impervious surface of the lot. Vegetation Retention: No removal of vegetation will be required for construction of the deck and fence. Seasonal Restriction: No clearing will be conducted for this project. Point Discharges: Existing discharge pipes on the slope from roof downspouts and footing drains will be replaced with fused HDPE pipe, discharging beyond the toe of the slope. These will be anchored above the top of the slope and lay on the ground surface down the slope. 2012-085 AR.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. November 6, 2013 HWA Project No. 2.012-0815 ECDC 2.3.40.240 Regarding unauthorized alterations to the erosion and landslide critical areas: As noted above, the proposed deck and fence will not reduce slope stability or increase erosion and thus the hazards are not increased relative to the predevelopment condition. Also, the risk of personal injury resulting from the alterations will be eliminated by the geotechnical and structural design and construction. The erosion and landslide hazard areas have been improved by the removal of invasive vegetation and replacement with erosion control matting and native vegetation. 0.0 Should you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please call. Sincerely, HWA.GEOSCIENCES INC. Brad W. Thurber, L.G., L.E.G. Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E. Senior Engineering Geologist Senior Geotechnical En ,gineer 2012-085 AR.doc 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 0 Windy Pfau 17330 761h Avenue W Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Stream Classification for Edmonds Property Dear Ms. Pfau: October 25, 2013 This letter summarizes my findings on critical areas at your property in Edmonds, Snohomish County, Washington. This 0.68-acre property (Parcel # 27040700401400) is located at 17330 76th Avenue W. It is my understanding that proposed reinforcement of a deck on your property may impact critical areas. In order to obtain building permits from the City of Edmonds, you need to know the classification and buffer width for a stream near the construction site. The results of a background review and site reconnaissance that I conducted are described below. Results of the Background Review The background review of existing information on this property includes but is not limited to: Snohomish County property records, City of Edmonds critical area maps, Snohomish County critical area maps, architectural drawings prepared by Exteriorscapes, a letter from the City of Edmonds Planning Division, and aerial photographs. I also reviewed the City of Edmonds Municipal Code for critical areas (Title 23—Natural Resources) to determine if there are any land use restrictions on this property (City of Edmonds 2013a). The critical areas identified by the City of Edmonds that I address in this letter include: wetlands, fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas. I did not address critical areas such as, critical aquifer recharge areas and frequently flooded areas. The Exteriorscapes drawing indicates this irregularly -shaped property measures approximately 163 feet wide and 178 feet long (29,730 square feet). The southwest corner of the property is bisected by a stream (Terrace Creek) that flows from southeast to northwest (City of Edmonds 2013b). This stream continues northwest onto adjacent properties and eventually discharges into the Puget Sound approximately 1,500 feet downstream. The property slopes southwest toward the stream with elevations that range from 195 feet at the eastern edge to 145 feet at the southwest corner. The Snohomish County critical area map indicates there are portions of the slope steeper than 33% (Snohomish County 2013), while the City of Edmonds topographic map indicates the slope is greater than 40% (City of Edmonds 2013b). The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.80.020) would classify this as a landslide hazard area (City of Edmonds 2013a). The proposed deck reinforcements are located near the top of this steep slope approximately RfEr'X:ws 80 feet from the toe of the slope. %�� NOV 0 7 2013 L17MPG 'DEPARTMENT GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 0'17Y OF EDkofqDS 937 NW 96 1h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com STREET FILE Windy Pfau Page 2 Edmonds stream classification October 25, 2013 Results of the Site Reconnaissance I conducted a site reconnaissance of the property on October 23, 2013 to evaluate critical areas such as wetlands, fish and wildlife conservation areas, and geologically hazardous areas. The steep slope between the deck and toe of slope has recently undergone restoration that involved removing invasive species, preventing erosion by staking down jute matting, and planting native shrub and herbaceous sped es. I located the stream near the southwest property corner and approximated the property lines on the north and east sides (see attached sketch). Terrace Creek has a wetted width that ranges from 2 to 6-feet for an average of 3 feet, and a depth averaging 2 inches. The fish habitat types mainly consist of low gradient riffle and lateral scour pools, and the average channel gradient is 2%. There is abundant woody debris in the channel that functions as weirs, bridges, and lateral logs. The substrate ranges from cobbles to silt with sand and small gravel dominating. The banks are incised I to 3 feet and vary from low banks to nearly vertical walls that confine the channel. There were some floodplain benches where woody debris confines the channel. There are also depositional areas where the channel widens and has a lower slope. I flagged the ordinary high water mark of Terrace Creek near the southwest property corner using lath stakes and ribbon labeled OHWM-1 through 12. Vegetation within the riparian area of the stream includes tree, invasive, shrub, and herbaceous species (see Table I for a plant list). The trees near the stream include red alder, big leaf maple, Douglas fir, western red cedar, and western hemlock. Invasive species in the riparian area include Himalayan blackberry, cherry laurel, holly, and English ivy. The shrub layer includes salmonberry, red huckleberry, and salal. The herbaceous species include lady fern, sword fern, nettles, skunk cabbage, creeping buttercup, and piggy -back -plant. Plants that have been installed on the slope as part of the slope stabilization and restoration include native shrub and herbaceous species. These shrubs include rhododendron, vine maple, red osier dogwood, redwood, red elderberry, wax myrtle, and Pacific willow. The herbaceous species include sword fern, lupine, and grasses. Some invasive species have started colonizing this restored slope such as bindweed and foxglove. Description of Critical Area Classification and Regulation The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.90.010.A) classifies four types of streams as fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas. Terrace Creek is not identified as a shoreline of the state (Type S) or anadromous fish bearing stream (Type F). The City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.90.010.A) makes a distinction between non-anadromous fish bearing streams that have perennial (Np) or seasonal (Ns) flow. Based on observations made during the site visit, I believe Terrace Creek is a perennial stream. According to the City of Edmonds Municipal Code (Chapter 23.90.040.D), Type Np waters require a 50-foot buffer. All of the proposed construction involved with reinforcing the deck should occur outside this 50' stream buffer. There should be no short-term construction impacts to Terrace Creek because no riparian GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 96th Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau Page 3 Edmonds streom clossificotion October 25, 2013 vegetation would be cleared and storm water runoff from the construction area would be stopped by the jute matting and other best management practices. Long-term impacts to Terrace Creek from stabilizing the slope and restoring the plant community are beneficial. The removal of invasive blackberry on this slope and planting of native shrub and herbaceous species will improve the riparian habitat. We recommend additional restoration of the riparian area along Terrace Creek in order to improve wildlife habitat. If you have any questions regarding these findings, please contact me at (206) 794-4520. Sincerely, Doug Gresham Professional Wetland Scientist Gresham Environmental Services Enclosure GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 961h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau 0 Edmonds stream classification Page 4 October 25, 2013 Table I List of Plant Species Observed on the Pfau Property Stratum Scientific Name Common Name \NjSa Tree Acer macrophyllum Bigleaf maple FACU Alnus rubra Red alder FAC Pseudotsuga menziesii Douglas fir FACU Thuja plicata Western red cedar FAC Tsuga heterophylla Western hemlock FACU Acer circinatum Vine maple FAC Cornus sericea Red osier dogwood FACW Gaultheria shollon Salal FACU Ilex aquifolium Holly FACU Shrub Morella californica Wax myrtle FACW Prunus lourocerasus Cherry laurel NI Rhododendron macrophyllum Pacific rhododenron NI Rubus spectabilis Salmonberry FAC Solix lucida Pacific willow FACW Sambucus racemosa Red elderberry FACU Sequoia sempervirens Redwood NI Vaccinium parvifolium Red huckleberry UPL Vine Hedero helix English ivy NI Rubus armeniacus Himalayan blackberry FACU Rubus ursinus Trailing blackberry FAC Herb Athyriumfilix-femina Lady fern FAC Convolvulus arvensis Bindweed N1 GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 961h Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau Edmonds stream classification Page 5 October 25, 2013 Table 1 List of Plant Species Observed on the Pfau Property Stratum Scientific Name Common Name \Nisa Digitalis purpurea Foxglove FACU Lupinus latifolius Lupine FAC Lysichiton americanum Skunk cabbage OBL Polystichum munitum Sword fern FACU Herb Ranunculus repens Creeping buttercup FACW Tolmiea menziesii Piggy -back plant FAC Urtica dioica Stinging nettle FAC a Wetland indicator status based on USCOE 2012 is defined as: obligate wetland (013L), facultative wetland (FACW), facultative (FAQ facultative upland (FACU), and not indicated (NI). References City of Edmonds. 2013a. Edmonds Municipal Code, Title 23—Natural Resources. Obtained from website: http://www.mrsc.org/codes.aspx City of Edmonds. 2013b. City of Edmonds critical area maps. Obtained from website: http://www.ci.edmonds.wa.us Snohomish County. 2013. Snohomish County critical area and property map. Obtained from website: http://gis.snoco.org/maps/snoscape/index.htm GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NIN 96 th Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com Windy Pfau Edmonds stream classification Page 6 October 25, 2013 Photo I —Steep slope between Terrace Creek and house looking north. `V� � 22", � - ?. c.. I I gv ftv F54 #1K I X A,- �1 'Ail ,WWI I IQ I Photo 2—Terrace Creek looking upstream at low gradient riffle habitat. GRESHAM ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES 937 NW 96th Street, Seattle, WA 98117 (206) 794-4520 doug@greshamenvironmental.com 41P 30 3o" Figure 1. Sketch of Pfau property showing Terrace Creek. ff "Mills HWAGEDSCIENCES INC., August 26, 1013 HWAP-roio6t'.No. 20111MS-21'' c-TREET FILE _18verior's6aPes Inc; RECEIVED 10017 Ofedriwood Avenue N. Seattle, Wa'-shiggion 98133 AUG 2 8 2013 .Attention: Ms . IN4arin Bjqrk DEVELOPMENT SERVICES COUNTER Subjeqt: GV!,0TECffN1CA AT�QN WJNDYPFAtjRE.SiDENCB M30 -76" A*e. W E dthonds, Washington Dear' -Marin, bx acdoidanpe with yqur re uest. HWA GeoScienc' In ; (HW,�), completed it je9techaical q, es en neenng study of the slope af the abov-e' r*renced address in E4*nds, Wh$4ingtq11,, Figur 91. . � . .- 'I, � ... .1 . i - .. I .. �1� 1. 1 - __ 1, shows the� project vicinity. The P*qse of our work wa� to ufideftO6 A gootechrucal ,inVestigation regarding the failing deck and slope on the southwest side of theh"oust, This report presentsthe results of oUr field and laboiafory investigations, and -out geotec�niz�j on qneenng conclusions and recbriiiiiendation'si SITE A.11M PROJEcr DESC RIPT'10N Th e' subject -property, $noboTnish Courti� Parc6l NumJber 270407-0040'1400, is located at thd weste'rn tenr�inW. 6fan ujuiaxne,d street locate . d between . 173'd StreOt SW I arid -175 ffi stree . t,SW approximately 600 fbet west of 16d'Avenue West. The housc�j constructed in.-I.977i. i's a one-s.loiyj split-level dwe!Lag with daylight basement anidinclude§ ei.,detached garage., Construction drawings wer I e not available for our rev . jew at the time of 6isstud Y_ The npA and riOrth-castern portion ofthe.paivel, where the.house, and. the detached ggi�oge aN built, Js relatively:flat; This area isdovered mainly by a-sphalt,,grass and. planters., Tothe;south and to the south-eas 6t,th house. thd terrain �lo' 0 oso pes d wn -from north-east t uth�w6tj ibith a.f-all, of about 50 f6et in elevation to Terrace C re wi a�gdndral sl to iv ek, th c.inclinatibli of b1i 2H-1V 9p- . Horiiontal:Vextical), decreasing,dowh the slope, A W—bodea deck l6cated 616 . 'so. t o t h 6 h a 6 se ekists at the top of the slope. The, deck ex-WAds' fivm* the, s6uth-etistei U_ comerbf the. house to the south-westem corn'ef of the house. The wood I (erldeck, built sever -al aTsago is cons'tru'&t.ad -with �ye wood posts and is set.on concrete Sonotube iers. The owner Wid !ioted-si& �pf p 21312 30th Qdw SE raveling, wN0jwas attributed to bao.unta:ih,bea'v'e*rs.' andhad B)tteriorscape's . 1.16 Bo(hell 498021.7010 . ., W. build an ancb.oTed timber retaining -Wal Lon, the dovnislobe side of the deck Tel, 425;774.0106 Fax:, 425.774.27,14 0 0 August 26, 2013 . . HWA Project No. 2012-085 the deck footings to stabilize the deck. The deck piers are tipping outward and the deck is pulling away from an existing short rockery on the upslope side near the southern side of the house, and soil behind the timber wall has raveled beneath it. The steep slope below the deck was cleared of blackberries by Exteriorscapes for our investigation and for future erosion control and replanting. Drain pipes from roof downspouts were visible near the top of the slope. We understand that the house is on the City sewer system. We understand the homeowner wishes to stabilize the deck and protect the side of the house proximal to the slope. As requested, HWA conducted a field investigation including geologic slope reconnaissance, drilling of three machine borings, and conducting laboratory analyses of soil samples. This geotechnical report contains our findings of the soil conditions in the -project area and our conclusions and recommendations pertaining to the r6mediation of the failing -deck, underpinning of the south side of the existing house, and the stability of the slope. GENERAL GEOLOGIC CONDITIONS The geologic map of the project area (Booth et a], 2004) indicate the surficial deposits consist of Vashon glacial till and advance outwash. The advance outwash generally consists of clean, pebbly sand which was deposited by melt water streams during advance of the Puget Lobe of the Cordilleran Ice Sheet. It was subsequently overridden by the ice and thus is over -consolidated. Glacial till mantles the highlands and was deposited directly by the glacie * r above the advance outwash or older deposits. It generally consists of a very compact� unsorted mixture of clay, silt, sand, and gravel with scattered cobbles and occasional boulders. During retreat of the Puget Lobe, melt water 6om receding ice eroded some of the underlying terrain, as well as deposited. outwash from the glacier. FIELD ExPLORATION PROGRAM The field exploration program included slope reconnaissance, completion of two cross sections including slope probing along the cross sections, conducting three machine -drilled borings, and evaluation of subgrade conditions along the southern and western footings of the house. Two HWA engineering geologists, Brad Thurber and Tewodros Taddese, conducted slope reconnaissance of the steep slope and completed two profiles of the slope on August 23, 2012. Soil types, erosion features, etc. were noted visually. Depth of loose, colluvial soils were determined along cross sections by probing with a V2-inch diameter, 6-foot steel T-handled probe. The cross sections (Figures 3 and 4) show the surface elevations and probing locations and depths, with the boring logs projected to that line from other locations on the slope. On August 30, 2012,14WA engineering geologist Tewodros Taddese supervised and logged three machine borings drilled to depths of 9 to 1.9 feet, designated BH-I through BH-1 The locations of the borings are shown on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 2. The bore'h*oles 2012-085 LR.doc 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 0 11 August 26, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 were drilled by Geologic Drill Explorations, Inc. under subcontract to HWA, using a limited access Acker drill rig advancing hollow stem augers. Soil samples were collected at 2 V240ot intervals using Standard Penetration Test (SPT) sampling methods, which consisted of using a 2- inch outside diameter, split -spoon sampler driven with a 140-pound hammer. During the test, a sample is obtained by driving the sa i mpler 1-8 inches into the soil with the hammer free -failing 30 inches per stroke. The ' number of blows required for each 6 inches of penetration is recorded. The standard penetration resistance of the soil is calculated as the number of blows required for the final 12 inches of penetration. If a total of 50 blows is recorded within a single 6-inch, interval, the test is terminated, and the blow count is recorded as 50 blows/number of inches of penetration. This resistance provides an indication of the relative density of granular soils and the relative consistency of cohesive soils, Soil samples obtained- from the explorations were classified in the field and representative portions were placed in plastic bags. These soil samples were then taken to our Bothell, Washington, laboratory for further examination and testing. Pertinent information including soil sample depths, stratigraphy, soil engineering characteristics, and ground water occurrence was recorded and used to develop a log of the borehole. A legend of the terms and symbols used on the borehole log is presented on Figure 5, and the borehole - logs are presented in Figures 6 through 8. The stratigraphic contacts shown on the borehole log represent the approximate boundaries between soil types; actual transitions may be more gradual. The ground water conditions depicted are only for the specific dates and location reported, and therefore, are.'not necessarily representative of other locations and times. LABORATORY TESTING Representative soil samples obtained from the subsurface explorations were taken to the HWA laboratory for further examination and testing. Laboratory tests were conducted on selected soil samples to characterize engineering properties of thesoils. Laboratory tests, a's described below, included moisture content determination, grain size distribution and Atterberg limits. Moisture Content of Soil: The moisture content (percent by dry mass) of selected soil samples was determined in general accordance with ASTM D 2216. The results are shown at the sampled intervals on the borehole logs, Figures 6 through 8. Particle Size Analysis of Soils: Selected soil samples were tested to determine the particle size distribution of material in general accordance with ASTM D422. The results are summarized on the attached Grain Size Distribution Report, Figure 9, which also provides information regarding the classification of the samples and the'moisture content at the time of testing. 2012-085 LRdoc J HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 0 10 August 26, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of Soils (Atterberg Limits): Selected samples were tested using method ASTM D 4318, multi -point method. The results are reported on the attached Liquid Limit, Plastic Limit, and Plasticity Index of'Soils report, Figure 10. SLOPE CONDITIONS The slope southwest of the house descends approximately 50 feet to Terrace Creek, and is generally inclined at about 1!/2H: I V (Horizontai:Vertical) along the steepest portions, and tailing out more gradually towards the creek. Localized portions slope more steeply over a few feet vertically. The slope had been recently cleared of blackberry brambles prior to our August 2012 slope reconnaissance. Thesoil at the ground surface consisted of olive brown, fine sandy silt. Many animal burrows were present, likely from mountain beavers or gophers. Tailings from the burrows draped down the slope. The ground surface was slightly hummocky, possibly due to deposits from older burrows. Quarry spall rocks were present downslope from the east end of the deck, and farther southeast away from the deck and house there were concrete slabs forming the upper part of the �lope. The existing deck has experienced structural distress, mainly at the eastern, non -walkway portion. Concrete piers have tipped and settled, distressing the wood framing. The timber wall (up to 3 feet high) which was later constructed to retain surficial soils has become undennined and soil has sloughed from behind it. The probing and-the,borings indicate,that there is a layer of weathered soil or un-compacted fill, both of which have moved in the past and would now be considered colluvium or slide debris. The colluviurn varies in thickness from a foot or so near the stream to 71 to 12 feet.at the top of the slope. Below the colluvium is a much more competent soil, probably either glacial advance outwash sand and gravel or glacial till with varying degrees of weathering. In our opinion, the sliding is occurring in the recent colluvium. The slope appears to be at about 30 degrees from the horizontal with short steeper and shallow areas marking the localized areas of most recent sliding or erosion. Based on surface observations, there appear to be many slumps on the surface of the slope� some of which have been filled in With gravel and other fill materials. We did not observe any ground water seepage on the slope. However, drain pipes, possibly from roof downspouts, were observed terminating near the top of the slope under the deck. SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Soils Our interpretations of subsurface conditions are based on the results of the field exploration, review of available geologic data, and our gen ' eral experience in similitr geologic settings. The soil units are'described below, with materials interpreted as b-eing'youngest in origin and nearest the surface described first. 2012-085 LR.doc 1 4 RWA GEoSciENCES INC. August 26, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 e Fill / Colluvium — Soft silt to sandy silt was encountered from the ground surface to depths of 5 to 12 feet in the borings. Depths of probing with a 6-foot long, T-handled probe also indicated loose or soft conditions in the upper several feet, with some areas probing to the handle (e.g. loose or soft to deeper than 6 feet). This soil was likely formed from sidecast fill during original lot grading and house construction, deposited over weathered glacial deposits that experienced downslope erosion or sloughing. A distinction between fill and colluviurn could not be determined based on intermittent sampling in the borings. Weathered Drift — This soil layer below the colluvium formed from mechanical and chemical weathering of the underlying glacial deposits. Medium dense, slightly silty sand was encountered in 13H-2 from approximately 12 to 15 feet. 9 Glaciolacustrine — Clay increasing in cohesiveness from stiff to hard was encountered in BH- 3 beneath the Fill / Colluvium. This unit was evidently deposited in a lake proximal to glacial ice. Till — Very dense, non -stratified, silty, sandy gravel was encountered in boreholes BH- I and BH-3 below depths of 6 and 13.5 feet, respectively. This unit was deposited beneath glacial ice as a deforming bed and was overconsolidated by the flowing ice. Advance Outwash — Dense to very dense, slightly silty to silty sand with scattered gravel was encountered in borehole 13H-2 below 15 feet. This unit was deposited prior to the till from glacial meltwater in front of -the advancing glacier, and was subsequently overridden by the ice and thus overconsolidated. Ground Water Ground water was not observed in any of the borings. However, wet soil was observed at . approximately 6 feet in BH- I and 13 feet in 13H-3. No ground water seepage was observed at the ground surface. We expect ground water levels will vary depending on location, season, and the relative abundance of p�ecipitation. HouSE FOUNDATION OBSERVATIONS We did not observe any indication of distress to the house from the outside near the slope, nor inside the crawlspace and inside the house. Probing and.observations along the perimeter of the house near the slope indicated the lip of a footing between a depth of about 2 feet at the southeast comer of the house and a few inche s above to a few inches below the ground surface along the southern wall of the daylight basement portion (west end) of the house. Probing of subgrade soils adjacent to and partly beneath the outside of the footings revealed loose or soft soils to depths of I to 2 1/2feet along the western portion of the house (daylight basement room). 2012-085 LR.doc 5 FfWA GEOSCIENCES INC. August 26, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 Probing along the remainder of the south side of the house indicated apparent bearing conditions at approximate footing depth. However, the borehole data noted below indicated soft to medium stiff soils in close proximity to the footings. , Borehole BH-2 was drilled about 20 feet toward the slope from the house and about 6.5 feet below the elevation of the ground surface at the house, i.e. the top of the footing. It encountered 12 feet of 2 to 6 blow count silt and sand. Boring BH-3 was drilled about 6 feet from the house and at approximately I foot above the ground surface at the house, and therefore 3 feet above the top of the footing. Boring BH-3 encountered 7.5 feet of 3 to 5 blow count silt. At both boring locations the upper soils may have been loosely dumped or bladed fill. Both borings would indicate that there is probably several feet of 2 to 5 blow count silt under the top of the foundations. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Remediation of the deck, slope, and house foundations proximal to the slope are feasible geotechnically. We understand that the owner wishes to remediate the deck to keep it from ftirther movement, and reduce slope erosion while not desiring to structurally retain the slope to prevent all erosion or movement. In our opinion, this goal is feasible by underpinning the deck piers with plumb and battered pin piles, with the pin piles driven into resistant soils beneath the loose surficial soils. Underpinning of the west end of the house appears necessary due to the presence of loose soils beneath the thickened slab footing, and is desirable beneath the remainder of the southern side footing due to proximity of the slope. SLOPE REMEDIATION The slope is likely to experience continued erosion and sloughing if not remediated. At this time, per our recommendation, the slope has been covered w ith erosion control matting and replanted with native perennial understory and shrubs. We further recommend that the mountain beavers or gophers be controlled in order to reduce significant downslope raveling of soil. Also, the roof downspouts and footing drains should be tightlined to a suitable discharge point or points, and not discharge directly on the slope. An HDPE pipeline running along the surface of the slope to the stream would be preferred in order to minimize disturbance to the slope. Corrugated sections of plastic pipe should not be used, as they tend to separate and leak water directly onto the slope. In our opinion the timber wall can be removed and the ground re -graded, which would result in no impact to the crest of the slope or the deck (assuming underpinning as noted below). . I Implementation of these recommendations and ongoing maintenance of vegetation, drainage measures, and pest control will reduce the rate of slope erosion and sloughing than has been experienced, but not eliminate this natural process completely. 20 i 2-085 LR.doc HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. I ' 0 August 26, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 DECK REHABILITATION Options for remediation of the deck have been discussed between the owner, Extertiorscapes, Swenson Say Faget (the structural engineer), and HWA. The chosen remediation, as proposed by the structural engineer, is to underpin each concrete deck pier with 2-inch diameter pin piles. Each pier would have one plumb pile, and one batter pile driven in an upslope direction. In our opinion this option provides the greatest resistance to soil creep or . raveling of soils beneath the deck. We understand the �in piles would be structurally connected to* the piers with steel brackets. The two-inch diameter pin piles can be designed for an allowable capacity of 3 tons each. If 3- inch pin piles were to be used, the allowable capacity would be 6 tons. The pin piles will need to be driven to practical refusal, which for 2-inch piles is with a 90-pound jackhammer to a driving resistance of less than I inch per minute. Geotechnical monitoring of pin pile driving will be necessary during construction. HOUSE FOUNDATION UNDERPINNING NEAR SLOPE Two to 5 blow count silt is not satisfactory bearing soil for a conventional house spread footing. Since there is no obvious settlement it is likely that the foundations are not standard spread footings, but are either footings supported on piles, or compacted fill or are part of a structural slab. We recommend that the westernmost portion of the house foundation be underpinned with pin piles, based on probing beneath the footings. Although the subgrade beneath the remainder of the South side of the house proximal to the southern slope appeared suitable for foundation bearing when probed, the close proximity to the crest if the slope and soft soil conditions inborehole BH-3 leads us to recommend underpinning the foundation to prevent potential future settlement. We recommend the pin piles be driven adjacent to the existing footing and thickened slab, and tied to the foundation structurally. CRITICAL AREAS . The site is outside of (nearly one-half mile south of) the Meadowdale Earth Subsidence Area, per City of Edmonds mapping. The slope southwest, west, and northwest of the house is defined by the Edmonds Community Development Code as a Landslide Hazard Area and an Erosion Hazard Area based on slope inclination (40 percent or greater) and soil type (Everett gravelly sandy loarn, on the slope down to the'creek). The extent of the 40 percent slope within the property is shown on Figure 2. The Erosion Hazard Area, per soils mapping and slope inclination, extends from the crest of the slope down to the stream. Located at the crest of the slope, the existing deck 2012-085 LR.doc 7 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. August 26, 2013 HWA Project No. 2012-085 is partly within the hazard areas, the remainder being within the buffer area. In our opinion, the remedial measures proposed will improve erosion resistance and slope stability in comparison to pre-existing conditions, and will avoid additional potential risk to the house on the property, structures on adjoining properties, and the adjacent stream. The remedial measures will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond pre-existing conditions, will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties, and will not adversely impact other critical areas. CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS We have prepared this report for Exteriorscapes Inc. and Ms. Windy Pfau for use in design of a portion of this project. This data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for , their bidding or estimating purposes, but the conclusi ons and interpretations presented should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. Soil and ground water conditions may vary significantly over small distances. If, during future site operations, subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described herein, HWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this report, and revision of such if necessary. Sufficient geotechnical monitoring, testing, and consultation should be provided during construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those i , ndicated by explorations; to provide recommendations for design changes should conditions revealed during construction differ from those anticipated; and to verify that the geotechnical aspects of construction comply with the contract plans and specifications. The scope of work did not include environmental assessments or evaluations regarding the presence or absence of wetlands or hazardous substances in the soil, surface water, or ground water at this site. No indications of potentially hazardous materials were observed in the explorations performed for this study. This firm does not practice or consult in the field of safety engineering. We do not direct the contractor's operations, and we cannot be responsible for the safety of personnel other,than our own on the site; the safety of others is the responsibility of the contractor. The contractor should notify the owner if any of the recommended actions presented herein are considered unsafe. . 0 2012-085 LR.doc 8 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. ,ktigust26,2013 HWA Pro 6et No. 2012-085 We appreciate the oppbrtubity to Orovide gcotcdhn�ic . A] smices on this priqject ShoLdd you haVe anyques6ons, orif wemay be, at farthet servicei plea.�.e call; Sincerely, MVA G0$C;IF,'NC*FI$ U%IC. Brad w. 'rhu.f6r, Senior Engineeiing Geologist Affachni e'nts: Figure I Figure 2 Figure 3 F igpre 4 Figure 5 I"i gures 6 — 8 Figure 9 Figore 10 References: 'Bryan K. Hawldns, P,E. Senior Geotechnical E.ng!.neer V.i6idity.Map Site and Exploratiop Plan Cross Swtiop A -A! Cross Sectib,n. B-B' Ugend of Teims mid Symbols Borehole..Logs BI-1-1 through BH-3 Particle Size Analysis of Soils ALIerberg' Limits Booth, Detek B., Kathy G. Troost and, Stott A.. Shirnel eologic Afop, ofthe j.2004, Composite G Sho-Kitig 4repa, Centrdl PugO L611dand, WaOii�7gton; Scattic--Area Geologic Map .p!ng 111roject., University of Washington, and U? S, Geological Survey �-,,scale 1:.24,000. AII-085 LRApo 9 H WA,GEOSCIL"NO-4i WC. OTT---, zi 'j� JH416' es Wharf.Park -164th.st-sw 16" pl- to 6 8th k- k �A Sw —i I I I , A vrfmo cmy -i72nd,!5-SW11--'-w -1-73td SI'sw �E 'ts' -I-r5 -�Red rP'ROJE�CT SITE thst-swl *'A Soo West PObifty. 0� rk Aj , t 801h -18011 9- iew,Dr-- '0- k S%� at -III '18 S "w SW BASE MAP FROM GOOGLE MAPS C GOOGLE NORTH - (NOT TO SCALE) [ro ' HWAGEOSCIENCES INC. �1 6 2nd-PI SW 6 - �11- k , . Meadowdafer Meadowdale roOlds- lbi��4aq MeedoWdale Middle Sch661- A E Jt P1 Sw g-jog" Qo 3vSv I V, VICINITY MAP WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE 1733076 TH AVE W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 I FIGURE NO. 1 2012-085 10 20 30 40 45.5 I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I r I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 1 77-7 1 86 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 1 Scale: V=10' DRAWN BY FIGURE # WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE CROSS-SECTION EFK 4 CHECK BY HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 17330 76TH AVE W. BWr PRojECT # EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026' B-B' DATE: 08.22.13 2012-085-21 TASK 100 SA2012 PROJECTS12012-085-21 WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE\CAD2012-085\KWA2012-085.DWG <FIG 3 BB> Plotted: 8r2=013 6:18 PM u 10 20 30 40 50 120 110 100 AV rl 0 HOUSE CV) Lu bo im dne 0 5 15 20 Scale: V=10' 90 80 70 60 so 40 30 20 DRAWN BY FIGURE # CULT WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE CROSS-SECTION EFK 3 CHECKBY I HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 17330 76TH AVE W. BWT PROJECT # I EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026 A -A' DATE: 08 . 21.13 2012-085-21 TASK 100 S:12012 PROJECTS%2012-08-1-21 WINDY PFAU RESIDENCMCAD 2012-085\HWA 2012-085.DWG <FIG 2 AA> Plollwl: 8r22/2013 6:17 PM I W i STAMPED -GREENE 29539* 6.-WOOD FEN N88'41'20' 17&27' CONCRETE RETAINING WALL & B"ICK' RETAINING WALL CONCRETE PATIO X FLAGSTON PATIO 1,101 X*.' 6 ICE-V ' E)aSTING HOUSE 4' DECORATIVE FENCE ROOF D D� ",\4'CPP IE-IBQ.08* SH B REEET MET TAINING '4 -177.1r BH-3 ASPHALT DRIVEWAY CV '0411 go — FLAGSTONE PATH 2' REBAR & .GREENE Z�wg. F 2' REBAR,\�- 001� 0 00 C2 0 SEE DETAIL Icv C2 FH� 1., c) '7 0-. 40 C:? 1 4j' CD % .7u 0 FOUND 5/9- REBAR t C ABLE) —KFOUND 1/2-1 REBAR CAP SS84SI9'E �IRASIS O� BE NO) 167. STONE SIGN I % I \. I . . . . — . . - BASE MAP PROVIDED BY: PACIFIC GEOMATIC SERVICES, INC. ASPHALT DRIVEWAY I FX si I LEGEND BH 3 BORING DESIGNATION AND APPROXIMATE LOCATION AW IML r N 7% 14-mor 0 10 20 30 40 DRAWN BY FIGURE # HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE 17330 76TH AVE W. EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 98026, 1 '1 SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN EFK 2 CHECK BY BWT PROJECT# 2012-085-21 TASK 100 BATE: 108.22.13 S:VO12PROJECTS\2012-08.5-21 WINDY PFAU RESIDENCE\CAD2012-085\HWA2012-085.DWG <FIG 2 Site> Plotted: 8/26120134:43PM RELATIVE DENSITY OR CONSISTENCY VERSUS SPT N-VALUE COHESIONLESS SOILS COHESIVE SOILS Approximate Approximate Density N (blows/ft) Relative Density(%) Consistency N (blowsIft) Undrained Shear Strength (psf) Very Loose 0 to 4 0 15 Very Soft 0 to 2 <250 Loose 4 to 10 15 35 soft 2 to 4 250 - 500 Medium Dense 10 to 30 35 65 Medium Stiff 4 to 8 500 1000 Dense 30 to 50 65 85 stiff 8 to 15 1000 2000 Very Dense over 50 85 100 Very Stiff 15 to 30 2000 4000 Hard over 30 >40.00 USCS SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS GROUP DESCRIPTIONS Gravel and GW Weti-graded GRAVEL Coarse Grained Gravelly Soils Clean Gravel (little or no fines) GP Poorl"raded GRAVEL Soils More than 50% of Coarse Gravel with GM Silty GRAVEL Fraction Retained Fines (appreciab.- on No. 4 Sieve amount of fines) GC Clayey GRAVEL Sand and Clean Sand SW Well-grded SAND More than Sandy Soils (little or no fines) SP Poorly -graded SAND 50% Retained 50% or More on No. of Coarse Sand with SM Silty SA NO 200 Sieve Fines (appreciable Fraction Passing Size No. 4 Sieve amount of fines) SC Clayey SAND ML SILT Fine silt Grained and Liquid Limit CL Lean CLAY Soils Clay Less than 50% OL Organic SILT/Organic CLAY MH Elastic SILT 50% or More Silt Liquid Limit Passing and 50% or More CH FatCLAY No. 200 Sieve Clay Size OH Organic SILT/Organic CLAY Highly Organic Soils PT PEAT COMPONENT DEFINITIONS COMPONENT SIZE RANGE Boulders Larger than 12 in Cobbles 3 in to 12 in Gravel 3 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Coarse gravel 3 in to 3/4 in Fine gravel 3/4 in to No 4 (4.5mm) Sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Coarse sand No. 4 (4.5 mm) to No. 10 (2.0 mm) Medium sand No. 10 (2.0 mm) to No. 40 (0.42 mm) Fine sand No. 40 (0.42 mm) to No. 200 (0.074 mm) Silt and Clay Smaller than No. 200 (0.074mm) TEST SYMBOLS %F Percent Fines AL Atterberg Limits: PL = Plastic Limit LL = Liquid Limit CBR California Bearing Ratio CIN Consolidation DD Dry Density (pcf) DS Direct Shear GS Grain Size Distribution K Permeability MD Moisture/Density Relationship (Proctor) MR Resilient Modulus I PID Photojonization Device Reading PP Pocket Penetrometer Approx. Compressive Strength (tsf) SG Specific Gravity TC Triaxial Compression TV Torvane Approx. Shear Strength (tsf) UC, Unconfined Compression SAMPLE TYPE SYMBOLS 2.0" OD Split Spoon (SPT) (140 lb. hammer with 30 in. drop) Shelby Tube 3-1/4- 06 Split Spoon with Brass Rings 0 Small Sag Sample Large Bag (Bulk) Sample Core Run Non-standard Penetration Test (3.0* OD split spoon) * GROUNDWATER SYMBOLS Groundwater Level (measured at time of drilling) T Groundwater Level (measured in well or open hole after water level stabilized) COMPONENT PROPORTIONS PROPORTION RANGE DESCRIPTIVE TERMS < 5% Clean 5-12% Slightly (Clayey, Silly, Sandy) 12-30% Clayey, Silly, Sandy, Gravelly 30-50% Very (Clayey, Silty, Sandy, Gravelly) Components are arranged in order of increasing quantities. NOTES: Soil classifications presented on exploration logs are based on visual and laboratory observation. Soil descriptions are presented in the following general order: Density1consistency, color, modifier (if any) GROUP NAME, additions to group name (if any), moisture content. Proportion, gradation, and angularity of constituents, additional comments. (GEOLOGIC INTERPRETATION) Please refer to the discussion in the report text as well as the exploration logs for a more complete description of subsurface conditions. =I I HMQOSaWCH INC Windy Pfau Residence 17330 76th, Ave W , Edmonds, Washington MOISTURE.CONTENT DRY Absence of moisture, dusty, dry to the touch. MOIST Damp but no visible water. WET Visible free water, usually soil is below water table. LEGEND OF TERMS AND SYMBOLS USED ON EXPLORATION LOGS PROJECTNO.: 2012-085-21 FIGURE: 5 LEGEND 2012-085.GPJ 8/23/13 1 DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic Dnllllff�lorafions LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Acker Soil Mechanic DATE STARTED: 8/30/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: SPTw/Cathead DATE COMPLETED: 8/30/2012 SURFACE ELEVATION: 178.00 * feet LOGGED BY: T. Taddese U) L) 0 0 (0 M U) W U) 0— U) D U ML Soft, olive brown to gray brown, SILT, moist. Scattered coarse sand. Tree roots, charcoal, organics (FILL / COLLUVIUM) ML Stiff, slightly rust mottled, grayish brown, SILT. Scattered fine to coarse SAND, wet. Wood (roots) noted. 3 ... k GM — — — — — — - (WEATHERED DRIFT) — — . — — — — J Very dense, gray, silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. Driller reported presence of gravel at 6 feet. Hard drilling at — G 16.5 feet. Large cobble or boulder at about 7.5 feet. P Very dense, gray, slightly silty, fine to coarse sandy, fine to GM OILL) E� E� 20 --J DESCRIPTION Borehole terminated at a depth of 9 feet. No ground water seepage was observed. Wet soil samples noted at 6.0 feet W Lu M Lu U z of uJ Standard Penetration Resistain ce W 2 Z) < U) a) U) Cn 1 (140 lb. weight, 30* drop) z Ul A Blows per foot uJ LU -J -J Q. a. Lu W � M Lu Z Z) < < Lu 0 LU Z 0 0 0 10 20 30 40 50 0 1 . . . . . . . . . i r—O S-1 1-2-1 S-2A 2-4-14 S-213 S-3 28-42-29 GS M ........... A A r , a 10 1 is I ,3n 0 20 40 60 80 100 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this Water Content (%) exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Plastic Limit Liquid Limit geotechnical report. NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: Windy Pfau Residence BH-1 MWI 17330 76th Ave W HMGE0SMNCZINC Edmonds, Washington PAGE: 1 of 1 � PROJECT NO.: 2012-085-21 FIGURE: 6 BORING 2012-085.GPJ at23113 Ak DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic DWIorations LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Acker Soil Mechanic DATE STARTED: 8/30/2012 SAMPLING METHOD: SPTw/Cathead DATE COMPLETED: 8/30/2012 SURFACE ELEVATION: 176.00 feet LOGGED BY: T. Taddese w CD w U z of Standard Penetration Resistance LU w 0. D < F.- En W U) (140 lb. weight 30' drop) 0 z 55.s w A Blows per foot 0 U) w -J a. w -J LU 'r I X w - Z :3 lu; IS < < W -z X 0 X w DESCRIPTION W EO Q. 0 a 0 10 20 30 40 a 50 5 10 15 ML Me ium stiff, gray brown, fine sandy, SILT, moist Trace SM rootlets and roots. (FILL I COLLUVIUM) — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Medium stiff, gray with some rust mottling, SILT, moist. ML Scattered coarse gravel. Trace rootlets. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Medium stiff, rust -mottled gray, silty CLAY, moist Trace M CL rootlets. Trace charcoal, organics. Loose, yellowish brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, -- ------------------------ SP -SNr SID SM -1 moist. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Loose, brown, slightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Medium dense, brown, silty to slightly silty, fine to medium SM SAND, moist to wet Driller reported becoming relatively denser at 12 feet (WEATHERED DRIFT) ense, brown, ig y rust mottled, silty to s ightly silty, fine to medium SAND, moist. (ADVANCE OUTWASH) 4�j; — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — Very dense, brown, slightly silty, fine to coarse SAND, - — SP moist to wet Scattered gravel. Borehole terminated at a depth of 19 feet. 20— No ground water seepage was observed. L20 For a proper understanding of the'nature of subsurface conditions, this 0 20 40 60 80 100 exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Water Content (%) geotechnical report. Plastic Limit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: -This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. BORING: UVA Windy Pfau. Residence BH-2 17330 76th Ave W PAGE: I of 1 HMGEOSCU14US M Edmonds, Washington I PROJECTNO.: 2012-085-21 FIGURE: 7 BOFUNG 2012-085.GPJ 8/23113 DRILLING COMPANY: Geologic DIMplorations LOCATION: See Figure 2 DRILLING METHOD: HSA, Acker Sail Mechanic DATE STARTED: 8/3012012 SAMPLING METHOD: SPTw/Cathead DATE COMPLETED: - 8/30/2012 SURFACE ELEVATION: 189.00 1 feet LOGGED BY: T. Taddese of W Do W z uJ Standard Penetration Resistance Lu (140 lb. weight 30"drop) 0 z S2 CD W 1-- 0 A Blows per foot 0 '4 W J W -J W of z D co U) a. 2 L) 0. M 0- M 2� X 0 Q. LU >- U) 0 V) D DESCRIPTION < < UJ 0 o.— 0 X 0 uJ 0 10 20 30 40 50 Soft, dark brown, SILT, moist. (TOPSOIL) ML Soft, grayish brown, SILT with scattered gravel, moist. Driller reported presence of gravel between 4.5 to 5.0 feet. (FILL I COLLUVIUM) — - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — - Medium stiff, olive brown, clayey SILT, moist. ML CL Stiff, rust -mottled olive brown, silty CLAY, moist. (GLACIOLACUSTMNE) 7— Very stiff, rust -mottled olive gray, CLAY, moist. CL — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — --- Hard, gray, CLAY, moist. Wet at about 13 feet CL GM Dense, to very dense, rust -mottled gray, silty, fine to coarse sandy fine to coarse GRAVEL, moist. (TILL) a w Borehole terminated at a depth of 15 feet. No ground water seepage was observed. a . . .. . . . . . . . 201 . . . . . ... . . . —20 For a proper understanding of the nature of subsurface conditions, this -0 20 40 60 80 100 exploration log should be read in conjunction with the text of the Water Content (%) geotechnical report. PlasticUrnit 1 0 Liquid Limit NOTE: This log of subsurface conditions applies only at the specified location and on the date indicated Natural Water Content and therefore may not necessarily be indicative of other times and/or locations. Windy Pfau Residence BORING: 17330 76th Ave W BH-3 HMGEOSCUNWINC Edmonds, Washington PAGE: 1 of I PROJECT No.� 2012-085-21 FIGURE: 8 BORING 2012-085.GPJ 8/23/13 0 GRAVEL SAND SILT CLAY Coarse' Fine coarse Medium Fine 111110 MR, I go so Sol Igo I SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION OF SOIL- ASTM D2487 Group Symbol and Name % MC LL PL PI Gravel Sand Fines * BH-1 S-3 7.5-9.0 (GP -GM) Olive brown, poorly graded GRAVEL with silt and sand 4 49.8 40.4 9.8 * BH-2- S-3a 7.5-8.5 (CL) Yellowish brown, CLAY 21 0.0 64.8 A BH-3 S-5b 13.5 - 14.0 . (GM) Dark yellowish brown, silty GRAVEL with sand 9 44.1 - 40.7.15.1 I., '�UK I .. 10 1 ."IM I PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS Windy Pfau Residence 17330 76th Ave W OF SOILS HMGKISCffNCB INC Edmonds, Washington METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2012-085 FIGURE: PARTICLE -SIZE ANALYSIS Windy Pfau Residence 17330 76th Ave W OF SOILS HMGKISCffNCB INC Edmonds, Washington METHOD ASTM D422 PROJECT NO.: 2012-085 FIGURE: 0 60 50 x LU 0 z 3 0 20 ZO 10 L000, CL-ML 0- 0 20 40 60 80 100, LIQUID LIMIT (LL) SYMBOL SAMPLE DEPTH (ft) CLASSIFICATION % MC LL PL. PI % Fines BH-2 S-1 2.5-4.0 (ML) Olive brown, SILT 27 38 26 12 BH-3 S-3- 7.5-9.0 (CL) Light olive brown, CLAY 32 49 26 - 23 tjw&&TTO -)ni�-nac i ac �o e ami4i Windy Pfau Residence LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND 17330 76th Ave W PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS 1MQ0SCffNCB INC Edmonds, Washington METHOD ASTIVI D4318 PROJECTNO.: 2012-085 FIGURE: 10 Windy Pfau Residence LIQUID LIMIT, PLASTIC LIMIT AND 17330 76th Ave W PLASTICITY INDEX OF SOILS 1MQ0SCffNCB INC Edmonds, Washington METHOD ASTIVI D4318 PROJECTNO.: 2012-085 FIGURE: 10 0 STREET FILE. DATF: Aunust 10, 1976 HErn TO: Harry 11hitcutt Buildinn nfficiai FROM: Richard H, Allen Assistant Citv F i nnineor SUBJECT: Building -Permit App,lication for (,ordon Ouncan at, 17330 - 76th. Avenue !`. I . 1_ After review of thr suhject Njildinq Permi t annlicatior.), wo have the fol- lowinq comments: 1. !�Ie-recommend denial of this permit as -it is not in conformance with street proposal and. is. 800 feet from a hYdrant and iqater main. 2. Please return permit for further review if the ahove items .are satisfied. Da�e,4-4-76 LUA[. DESCP BUILDING PERMIT PEVIEW EIMINEERING DEPARTMENT CHECK LIST Instruction: Check Accuracy of Le(ifl -nescription 1000, Check Anainst Assessor's.HaP for Lenal SubdivisiondO Does it conform to City Approved Subdivision? 40 Revievier'.S. Ini tial.s 1. Thi s lot included in '�uhdi vi sion/Pl at 11o. :_wwc 2. Site Inspection made on: 3. 11hat are pround water-�and soil conditions? 4. Site nrainarie rheckf,d? 5. Storm.Sewer Availabilitv: Pvlq, No. Project --— Roadside Ditch mw� 6. Grading & Final ContOLJY�S:- 7. Septic Tank System Desion Apliroved: 8. SanitarY Sewer Avail',ihilitv Shf. of %0. -No. ect _Y ro Side sewer availability- or RPM 9. Sanitary Sevier Connection Fees? 0 10. Uater Mains A Fire. Hydrants (Indicate Size Main) CT.1 &09 70 Check Fire Dept.'s Comments 11. . Sidewalks: (-5ite inspection shows condit ions of sidevialks a s fol 1 ows) 12. Curbs:. C_u r _hC_u_t s__,i a y _s /Dri ve.� (Check driveways. for safety, Incation, grade and width):_ )Dlr ID 13., Underotnund 11irino: 1% Street Li(]-hts:' wwr leap. 14. Street Riqht-of-wa.v b Pldg. setbacks: Slit. of:nffi cial*Street,Map. 15. Exiisting Utility. Easements? 16. Access Easements- 17. Site Plan checked for, accuracy? 18. Special Requirements listed in tiepin to Bldg. Dept. 19. Commercial & Rent.0'rements' fo r m completed? - 20. Drawinris stamped F, notations made? - 21. Al 1 1 te'"s f i 11 ed i n 'On 11 dg. Perrii t Application? 22. Bonds posted for site -work? 23. Right-of-way Invasion Permit required? COMMENTS: STREET FILE MEVO TO: Harry 11hitclitt Buildino Official FROM: Richard P. Allen Assistant Citv 'F.noine(,r SIJBJECT:� BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIOIN FOR GORDOPI DUNCAN AT Y�3 3 (1 76th AVENUE W. After review of the quhjPct huildinn. nermit application, we have the fol-- lov,,ing.comments; 1) Coordination of location Of bUildinn- wi th utilities is the responsibility of the contrac.tor. 2) Connection to sanitary sewer required. 1) Lot drainane to be.6ontained on site. 4) Driveway slope not to,excebd 14 percent. 5) Water service connection to h.e at 76th Avenue 11'. 6) Hemo dated August 10, 1976, to the Building Department recommended deni-al.of this permit. On October 19, 1976,� t.he City Council passed Ordinance 1878 which altered the publ,ic right- ' of -way and added a turn -around requirem.ent--see File. ST-14-76 in Planning Department. Ap*proval of.the;permit is. recommended at this 'time. WJN:RIIA:mjr Date[61 Z 474 PEPJ11T ADO*,,11*)SO WX DEC;C r a BUILDING PERMIT RFVIEH ENrINEEPING DEPARTMENT CHECK LIST. Instruction: Check Accuracy of Lerial nescription ...Check A.nainst Assessor.'s Man. for Lenal Subdivision Does it conform to rity Approved Subdivision? Reviewer's Initials kr" 1. Thi.s lot i n c 1 tide d . in '�uhdivjsion/Plat No. Ig _W* 2. Si.te Inspection made on: .110) 2-2- 17 a te 3. 14hat are vround w, r and soil conditions?STIEM <1 Z001"A I 01 4A JL 11 4. site nrainarip Theck(� IV -.Iv-VVA EW-96- 5. Storm.Spwer Availability: Slit. of' f1w(j. No. ORAM" PU �Pro jec Roadside Ditch, Grading Final Contours: Ah, 6 'Row N 44 7. Septic Tank System Des I (in Approved: N_ 8. San i ta r ' y �ewer Availat)ility Y .5 sht. k/ q No.1/09 Project L I i c7t, 4-- Side sewer availabilit,v- W=�__ 9. Sanitary Sewer Connection Fees ? Uater Pains A Ti.re 110rants (Indicate Size 116 i n) t#M,. q DO. N _a Check Fire Dept.'s Comments A 11. Si devia 1 V s: (Site inspection shows. conditions of s-idevialks 'as. follot-is) 12. Curl)s:__M D Cuts/Prive.WciYs (r.heck driveways for safety, location, qrade and width-)': —7- -13.. Under(iround 11irinn: Street Liqhts: 14. Street Riqjjt-of-wjY I I I (I q er-W C; e t h. a c I - Mw -sht. of . nfficial Street -Map. 15. Existinq Utility Easements? 16. Access Easements---.- 17. Site Plan checked for accuracy? Jx 18. S p e.c i a 1 R eq ul rtme n ts I i s ted i n Hemp. *to B I dq. Pep t . 5 —9!W. 19. Commercial & Ap t. Pe.nuirements form'completed? 20. Drawings stavip.ed F, notations made? 01. 21. All Items f i 11 ed in on Bldg. Permit Application?....1 22. Bonds posted for site work? 23. Pi ght-of -way Invasion Permit required? COMMENTS: DATE HOUR. TO WHILE OU WERE 0 T, OF , PHONE -TELEPHONED x RETURNED.CALL LEFT PACKAGE PLEASE CALL F WAS IN PLEASE SEE ME WILL CALL AGAIN WILL -RETURN IMPORTANT- - SIGNED The AICO-UTILITY Line Form No. 55-046 3 0 ---R 77 CITY of EDMONDS PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT Routing of Building Permit Applications Proposed Property Address of Application: 17330 - 76th Avenue West DEPARTMENT COMMENTS DATE W A T E R S T R. E E T zt7,,; 1`44' 7w N 0 T E S BUILDING DEPARTMENT COMMENTS ZMEW BUILDING DEPARIVENT Applicant Fill USE PERMIT ZONE NUMBER RECENtu Inside Heavy Lines PERMIT APPLICATION JOB Ilk . DDRESS 3 7 NAME (OR NAME OF BUSINESS) D: W Z 3: 0 LEGAL LOT 0 YES NO LOT AREA jigg-m I MAILING ADDRESS '_7 / 7 VARIANCE OR COND. US'E NO. ADB NO. 0 CITY S, ITELEPHONE NUMBER PROPOSED YARDS FRONT SIDE REAR z Z u W U it NAME ALLOWABLE PROPOSED SIGN AREA SIGN AREA CL ADDRESS OTHER REQUIREMENTS CITY f1_5 TELEPHONE NUMBER I R /-- !;- PLANNING DEPT. APP ROVAL DATE NAME STREET R/W EXISTING STREET R/W FT. DEFICIENCY THIS PROPERTY COMP. PLAN ST. R/W FT, FT. 0 U z 0 U 0, ADDRESS ;7 CITY TELEPHONE NUMBER 7;7 _5_2 q-4 REMARKS 0 w STATE LICENSE NUMBER CITY LICE NSE NUMBER E D BY w Z Legal Description of Property (Show Below-af-Attach Four Copies) STREET AND/OR UTILITY, El YES z w WORK REQ'D' El N 0 UNDERGROUND El YES. Z 0 IL WIRING REO'D El NO TYPE CONNECTION VERIFIED BY Ir U V) LLP YES PERMIT SEPTIC SYSTEM APPVD BY CITY ENG. NO NUMBER It w 1A 47 6,74- REMARKS w _J METER SIZE SIZE CLEARANCE CHECKED BY ISERVICE m w REMARKS GAS [�rNEW RESIDENTIAL LINE FIRE ZONE TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE NON-RESID.NTIAL SIGN ADD RETAINING DEMOLISH WALL rALTER EXCAVATE FENCE OR FILL X—F T) REPAIR PRE -MOVE swim El INSP. POOL I I _ SPECIAL INSPE C TORIAREA REQUIRED 0 YES El N 0 OCC U PANCY GROUP OCCUPANT LOAD PLAN CHECKED BY THIS SITE IS LOCATED IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS. LOCAL SALES TAX SHOULD BE CODED 31,04. rd REMARKS Z NUMBER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DWELLING UNITS NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE z 0 PLAN CHECK NO. VALUATION FEE PROPOSED USE 0. i U V1 w PLOT PLAN (INDICATE BUILDING SETBACKS, ABUTTING STREETS) BUILDING PLUMBING HEAT & GA'S LINE 0 FENCE SIGN. RETAINING WALL SWIMMING POOL I ',� , -.0 0 3 j-.1 L 0 '� I ('J J a O�F-: tlle 'C.e.r ol: cjua-rte,,-. ol" Sc,c, Lion 7, 27 Nor a i", -I �� 4 d c.! s c I b e d a 0 11 o w s R - �RFVBD T N AUQ 197 CITY Of 90MOMIS J31-,-.-jJxL,aJ.nc,f at a poir)IC, orl the. 'I c):,: L -'.e Said ha.1,1 ol- L--, Al 1-1�: 11: L L 1- y- 1 a s t 7�-.0.01� :Fe."-L c C) --c -i- _r I c-� i L It n c cz .. i C 0 h-:�co-ul-1�1-ng, c O,r-! L-. 7 x: mtc-)-e ol-- 1"-s!�;, c) C) t: h cc) o f ,j C' C) Engs Lrom :mCl coll-�.rac: ,.EJA.-��2d for d I I I! dc,--c Aud Lor A. -1. e No 114, -'-) 2 3 -L-hei-ice sDutCh �j.. - e o if s a ct T. o -.-i r �t c. t a rl --- e 0:"-: 10" -12 C-1 t I c 'I c' c S o , i i(-. I 1, 7 0 4 0 W a S 0 - _5 8 f e 'e L -1C. c) 1--he CO-L:ll oj` ljmCl bei.ric. purchcised by Rodn.-c---!v and w: -cl r c: o,-, I t r, El c s a I e. C, C, C) �: J- C C) �(: d u n OL Ai.�d i. L_10 r ' s f i I 13V-1521; '11-n-,rlce Sou"i, 22U 4 E ---- L S JL- G S - -11 cc)rn.!�n-- Of SZZid WOOC !nce Soul -I jl 0"31 J-,.'ast *1 z onc JLLIle lch-:.�� SouL':h li�ie o-f- slaid Sc.) �-i SouUh half of .-U-ie T.,.�ortCll O'L qu;urb:�:c of 0-1- di�;,. itce oj- 165 tee-LL, F.,lorc., o--c less, Z--1 li-l-le . runnincs -,S-outtlla 0`44' C15" West t-lice polliti- O.-l- b-.E!ginrdrtcj; t-h e n.c c,. N or -'- h 0 c' 4, 1 4 s 'L'� 16 2 E)' !i L f-cet to the pc)int o�'L z.,,n,,-[ a3-i c-, for ingress and egresF3 llpo--1 J ow n, (A)* The S, ou'Ch 12 1) f -- e t of- tlie Y.-,, s 9 I f o:- the. Soul--li 11�1.11:E Of SOU'Ll-I 11-71. C) CUE!-CL- 011: SOULL G11 0, --:t _t - L-( . C), gc., 4 'L, , Sectio.n 7, To--l-ins'lip 2 7 N- o -r- th , R f, L ; --- ; - W.M. E]KC.EPT road or str"".c" z"Long the 'A. I-L C- h e, 3�: e o:,'-- f thze A Istrip ok land 2 2 . 9 'c e- id Soutl-i- line of 1,711-ich is -ig at a poi-n- on the South D e cj J- cin ix I L- L- 1. line of th Soutll Y�aj-'. o th e- f - e S c), hal.-E o:i--- the North halic of iclhe Nor-lla- e a s t. cl u a r -L E, r o f tl �, e S ou i e EL z�, -L cj"L I --I r te r of Sec tion 7 'cb-":--iship 27 North,' Rla-cige E'Ll s t 1: TO' - 1--'! t. 1-1 a t i s N o r lcli 8 8 1 5 3) 1 Wt�, s 191 feet fro-ni ther- Southel,-.1st corner of said soutll ha . lf of the South half o-F the No--rth half of the lNortheast qu;--trtcr L 0 f t)'-1 e Soutlaeasl-- quarter; - thence -Cro,-,.i "i' of begim-ling, continue NorliCh sald POL 8S'53' Vlest, along th2 Sou-'-h ine oj, At- RF_cFnVED UZZ 14 2nu-Iij DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR- CITY OF EDMONDS , --- -,-:I �' , `�- r,rl m .c� az + A m DRIVEWAY ASMAULT DRIVEWAY Ise I .... ... 74.W 4173.4! 17. 162.85' 162-� 119PEWWOUS SURFACE CXLCS (E)- EMSMO NM - A=) 913f fan-n-4 = 1.- (EpC=5E 2. -0, A— 62- $170-211 LESS (r.71am., 2Ug-44 I LES AW A -.. . i'_ " CONCREIE W Y A— lg;J 7 OVERED (,JC COVERED r. SACK AND SIDE PAIM 31732 SIDE P. p AD 1:1 1. .1. 14-1 f (E) WAT PUIAP PAD Al� OR TOIAL IMPERVIOUS SURFACE (E) VA 1977 A— 0,201 3q It p M)SOA1,8Z A 9tg 111 11 p (NJ CK Aoo,,rr4,N, A,� i2a .4 " P= DRIVEWAY 62&977 .4 it p 'r WALXWAy TO BE RE IOVED A— a :r To Be R� "A MOVED 2.U.194 'q it p 3 '1 a TOIAL mopOSEB IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AN 1 .040 'q It /32' ZE A,.- 29729.661 " It PA,. G7S*-5 1 1) ST Sw LOT COVERS[ 27.52 76t LOT AGE IAO' LOT SLOPE - 10% PLOT PLAN 1"=X' 0-171.1- C-1701W DRIVEWAY SLOR -39 O-Inr CRADRIO CALCS 20 MS "PORT AVE CRADE-4171.t AC7UAL-18&95 UOUMAW�+186.2' APPROVED BY PLANNING, CIL -1 T ukyrv"ly LEGAL DESCRIPTION: SEE ATTAC14ED SURVEY TAX ASSESSOR'S PARCEL t. 072704-4-014-0004 ZONING. RS 12 1 1 DESIGN LOAD�S:- SEISMIC ZONE 3. EXPOSURE A 80 MPH- ROOF. IOPSF DEAD LOAD, 25PSF LIVE LOAD =-35 PSF PROJECT . OWERS; ADDRESS. PHONE. 17330 761h AVE WtST EDMONDS WA 98026' KEN AND MNDY PFAU SAME AS ABOVE 425 775 0289 MCQOVWLL DESIGN BUILD'INC 95266 SAND POINT WAY NE SEATTLE WA 98115 206-729-6294 MCDO*080440J SHEET TITLE PLOT PLAN- ETAILS DATE. 12111101 I SHEET va PROPOSED FENCE 15"PROPERTY J PROPERTY OWNER: Windy Pfau PROPERTY ADDRESS: 17330 76th Ave W, Edmonds, WA 98026 PARCEL#: 27040700401400 ZONE: RS-20 LOT COVERAGE: 8407.9 SF (27%) (35% ALLOWABLE) LOT AREA: 29,729.661 SF LOT SLOPE: '0\'o � i la'000, OVER40% Design Firm J� EXTERIORSICAPES, LLC Landscape Designs Constructions Maintenance Exteriorscapes 100 17 Greenwood Ave. N. Seattle, WA 98133 206.517.2650 fax 206.783.1832 Project Title PFAU Parcel # 27040700401400 17330 76th Ave W Edmonds, WA 98026 Drawing Title DECK PLOT PLAN Project Manager NOTES: MB Drawn By COPYRIGHT 2008 MB THIS DRAWING WAS CREATED SOLELY FOR EXTERIORSCAPES, LLC. Reviewed By DISTANCES AND LOCATIONS NEED TO BE CONFIRMED BY A LICENSED SURVEY TECHNICIAN. Date ALL MEASUREMENTS ARE APPROXIMATE. 11/22/2013 CAD File Name Filename Project ID Scale Drawing No. Attachment A of C:) 10'CITY SEWER EASEMENT, CITY OF EDMONDS EASEMENT #211697 (E) ASPHALT DRIVEWAY PERMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON 1/2/2002 (E) GARAGE PERMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON 112/2002 (E) WIDE SEAM FLAGSTONE PATHWAY PERMITTED AND APPROVED BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS ON 1/2/2002 (E) RESIDENCE TO BE REINFORCED (E) RESIDENCE TO BE REINFORCED (E) BORE HOLE, TYP. (B-1,13-2,13-3) PROPOSED GAPPED DECK (E) LANDSCAPE ROCKS, TYP. (E) STACKED WOOD LANDSCAPE WALL TO BE REMOVED/DEMOLISHED HILLSIDE COVERED IN NATIVE VEGETATION — 50"STREAM BUFFER (PER BIOLOGIST -------- LETTER DATED 10/25/13) Applicant shall repair/replace aP, damage to i uti!i'ips or -front-age improvements in City righl-of-way per Ci 'y standards that is cauzied 0�'CXXU13 ClUring the permitted project. (E) EASEMENT FOR rJM4ER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLL.' INGRESS & EGRESS FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL - SILT FENCE PER CITY OF EDMONDS DETAIL E1.1 (E) TERRACE CREEK (TYPE Np, PERENNIAL STREAM PER BIOLOGIST LETTER DATED 10/25/13) Zone P-S�, Corner Flag Setback.,, Actual Fr—onT Sides Rear Other EQ�_ �vee_� Boot --I/ V "� ��' ,� r ` "I"GINEERING U I , L; ".[A4111 p 2-11 t) Nf5w 1M)5'+_7WJU'U J, V\e�i�vr� t)� -Ftvic-e, FIT] VJt)-HC'C_ DF de( NOTE: ALL DISTURBED SOILS TO BE COMPOST AMENDED. NOTE: FOR THIS PERMIT NO NEW IMPERVIOUS SURV ACES WERE ADDED. se:e. BLD20020160 SlAtFkCP�S knom AF-II 0 20 80 FT RESUB N NOV 2 6 2013 BUILDING DEPAIRUMENT CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE S 0 ---) up V NOTES:. CALCULATED LINES WITH TIES IN MEADOWDALE LANE TO HOLD SW CORNER OF THE N 1/2, NE 1/4. SE 1/4 SEC. 7 THE SOUTH LINE OF THE N 1/2, NE 1/4, SE 1/4 SEC. 7 CRAPHIC SCALE 10 20 40 S 88*53'00" E C, CONC PATIO P 2' OF 2ND FLOOR CANTILEVERED r 34.16 00 o' ( IN FEET ) I INCH= 20 FT. 10.85' I TOP SLOPE -Me LEGEND MONUMENT IN CASE SET 1/2" X 24" REBAR WITH CAP LS 29539 -0- UTILITY POLE CALC CALCULATED MEAS. MEASURED 358.46' N 89-53'42" W (CORD) PC 26CI.00' N 89*53'42" W 173 RD ST SW (CEHTERLINE) --/ 12.72' 178.00' DEED 178.50' MEAS 740.95' _PLAN�TER S 88*53'00" E LEGAL DESCRIPTION ALL THAT PORTION OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE 26. SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH, RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. IN SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTRON, DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS: tv) 56.1 lzt: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE NORTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF THAT IS DISTANT NORTH 88*53' WEST 740.95 FEET FROM THE CIV t) NORTHEAST CORNER THEREOF; V: THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, COMTINUE NORTH 88*53' WEST 178 FEET MORE OR LESS TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF _�lo CIV LAND BEING PURCHASED BY WESLEY C. ENGSTROM AND WIFE UNDER CONTRACT OF SALE FILED FOR FECORD UNDER RECORDING < 26.2, NUMBER 1544323; ASPHALT THENCE SOUTH 9*12'45" WEST ALONG THE EASTERTLY LINE OF SAID ENGSTROM TRACT A DISTANCE OF 104.12 FEET; Q) Co/vc THENCE SOUTH 78*06'40" WEST 0.58 FEET TO THE NORTHEAST CORNER OF LAND BEING PURCHASED 13Y RODNEY WOOGERD AND WIFE UNDER CONTRACT OF SALE FILED FOR RECORD UNDER RECORDING NUMBER 2373521; THENCE SOUTH 22*47'25" EAST 65.42 FEET TO THE SOUTHEAST CORNER OF SAID WOOGERD TRACT; THENCE SOUTH 88*53' EAST ALONG THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID SOUTH HALF, A DISTANCE OF 165 FEET MORE OF LESS, TO INTERSECT V) � LINE RUNNING SOUTH 0-44-45" WEST FROM THE POINT OF BEGINNING; THENCE NORTH 0*44'45" EAST 162.85 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING. TOGETHER WITH AN EASEMENT FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER, ALONG AND UPON THE FOLLOWING: bi THE SOUTH 12.9 FEET OF THE EAST 191 FEET OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST PLANTERS .1 n 0 (o QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH , RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. 114 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON; EXCEPT ROAD ALONG THE EAST MARGIN THEREOF. S 88*53'00" E 165.00' DEED S 89*54'12" E 164.74' MEAS —SW CORNER OF THE N 1/2, NE 1/4. SE 1/4 SEC. 7 .", '�' n- " . A STRIP OF LAND 22.9 FEET IN WIDTH THE SOUTH LINE OF WHICH IS DESCRIBED AS: BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER OF SECTION 7, TOWNSHIP 27 NORTH , RANGE 4 EAST, W.M. 114 SNOHOMISH COUNTY, -WAS INGTON, WEST-101 FEET FROM To F,:S9,UTH EAST CORNER OF SAIP,:. SOUTH HALF; THENCE FROM SAID POINT OF BEGINNING, CONTIONUE NORTH 88*53' WEST. ALONG THE- SOUTH- LINE, OF -SAID-SIJ E3DI VISION, A DISTANCE— OF 63.4 FEET, THENCE NORTH 81*09' WEST 92.84 FEET TO A POINT ON A CURVE; THENCE WESTERLY ALONG A CURVE TO THE LEFT, RADIUS OF 472.22 FEET, OFF A TANGENT BEARING NORTH 76'16' WEST AN ARC DISTANCE OF 255.5 FEET TO THE SOUTH LINE OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE SOUTH HALF OF THE NORTH HALF OF THE NORTHEAST QUARTER OF THE SOUTHEAST QUARTER; THENCE NORTH 81'53' WEST 141.5 FEET TO THE EAST LINE OF THE ABOVE DESCRIBED MAIN TRACT AND END OF SAID LINE DESCRIPTION. SUBJECT TO AND TOGETHER WITH ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRICTIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND RIGHTS OF RE(,'ORD IF ANY. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - INGRESS & EGRESS EASEMENT 0 742.62' HELD MON CALC, SUBDIVISION LINES WITH TIES TO BROOKVIE� �, 326.85' TALBOT GLEN, JANRIS ESTATES AND MEADOWDALE LA�E S 01'08'50" W Lo �t C3 Q0 U-) 0) C-i (.0 832.15' _% S 89'53'50" W MEAS. TO INTERSECTION IN JANRIS ESTATES EQUIPMENT AND PROCEDURES 175n' ST SW LAND SURVEYORS CERTIFICATE ALL MEASUREMENTS WERE MADE WTH AN ELECTRONIC THEODOLITE WITH A ONE SECOND HORIZONTAL AND VERTICAL -DISPLAY AND MANUFACTURES STANDARD THIS MAP CORRECTLY REPRESENTS A SURVEY MADE BY ME OR UNDER MY POINTING DEVIATION OF THREE.SECONDS AND AN ELECTRONIC DISTANCE DIRECTION IN CONFORMANCE WITH THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE SURVEY RECORDING MEASUREMENT DEVICE WITH A STANDARD DEVIATION OF 3MM± 3PPM ACT AT THE REQUEST OV MARK McDOWELL IN SEPT., 2001 KAUTUnn IM (IMA01 1 Aklr'17 %AIITW lAl A (' 7r)—r)ar) G U Y WA 0 z 29539 I (Z ST XPIRES 11/2 2 1 ALL POINTS INDICATED FOUND WERE VISITED IN 9-2001 UNLESS OTHERWISE CERTIFICATE NO. 29539 NOTED. REVISIONS GENERAL NOTES SURVEYED BY RGG GREENE LAND SURVEYING AEDMOND.Ss WASHINGTON PHONE (425) 697-6606 FAX (425) 697-6604 RECEIVED DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTA. CITY OF EDMONDS HORIZONTAL DATUM: N 88*53'00" E ALONG THE NORTH LINE OF THE S 1/2, S 1/2, N 1/2, NE 1/4, SE 1/4, SEC. 7 "f-l'f--t'Tm-vy DRAWN . BY RG CHECKED BY APPROVED BY DATE PRINTED 10/01 /01 SCALE 1 20' 4 PG 38 AUDITORS CERTIFICATE FILED FOR RECORD THIS DAY IN BOOK OF SURVEYS, PAGE BOB TERWILLIGER COUNTY AUDITOR C14 n W 04 'SN 0) 0 0ou 3: V) ,2001 AT AT THEREQUEST OFR.G. GREENE DEPUTY AUDITOR PLAT OF SURVEY McDOWELL PESIGN BUILD PTN: N.E. 1/4 S.E. 1/4, 1 SEC. 7, T 27 N, R 4 E, W.M JOB NO. 2001.27 DRAWING NO. 27 SHEET OF 1 1 0/--- k13 (o -133o 70 01 &-e- 0 0 vpl RECEIVED 1 11, "t�ll CITY Cop IV DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS