17330 76TH AVE W (2).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