The URL can be used to link to this page

17806 73RD PL W.PDFIIIIIIIIIIII 5824 17806 73RD PL W City of Edmonds -100 REEI&Yth-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION. PERMIT --WWEW— C� 1z) 9 0 - 1 9 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: - B. Type of Work (be specific): C. Contractor: Washington Nat'l. Gas Co. MailingAddress: 815 Mercer, St.Seattle, Wn_ State License #: 98111 D. Building Permit # (if applicable): rermit Number. Wue Date: :i2LA3 17806 73:Pl. SW (9320624) Install New Service Contact: Frank Swan Phone: 224-2278 Liability Insurance: Bond: $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): E. F1 Commercial E) Subdivision El City Project NWtility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER) n Multi -Family EJ Single Family E] Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut INVes []No G. SizeofCut:(I/)2 X�4 Cut H. Chargt�_$ Gas *Gas is at e ,avfng edg APPLICANT TO READ A Ab SIGN U-1) ZL-ges, or __?d ' r INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees trho the City ofEdmonds harmless m injurt claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legal proceedings including defense Costs, and attorney fees by reason ofgranting thispermit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK. ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BEPRbC&SSED FOR ISSUANCII�Q THE Apf� ICANT. 11 , Const ' ruction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. - Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the 6nd of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. 1have read the abouestatements and understand thepermit requirements and thepink copyof thepermit will be available on site at all times for inspection Bpxpirses. Le July 16, 1993 Signature: Date: (Contractor or Agent) CALL -DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY APPROVEDBY: RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND'I.111:. SPECIAL CONDITIONS: COM40 P0,toeL TO RESTORATION FEE: FAIL- P 4-u- K-AM PER . MIT FEE: 1,_oototm4TC t-v ('T M CJT r TOTAL�FEE: 0 30-7. ;t!�6- 7'�,c 4 C-,-oX-. - I . COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE: DATE: ISSUED'BY: W NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Engrg. Div. 1991 cl I FIELD INSPECTION NOTES Com,ments: I Diagram.: (Fund 111 - Route copy to Street Dept.) CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION El YES NO Partial Work Inspection by P.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: Bndum, to city 'of Edmonds Right of Way Permit Applicatinn Submitted by: Guyla Connors Engineering Aide Washington Natural Gas 521-5248 U(49 PL \.vAjc---,,--)nE 4f:, A.-r JDA�j I LIL-4 WNG to window Water main depth gas main K- ey: -w- water -g- gas - -ss- sewer -e- water hydrant 0 water valve 815 Merccr St. (RO. BOX 1869). Scattic, WA 98111 (206) 622-6767 ST RE.ET FILE 'PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME:' PLAN CHECK 5/6., PROJECT ADDRESS:-../ 76 n(o - -,73 Pz- 6,c) RECEIPT DATE: A;kk /,Fnx REVIEW D BY: (I nitial/Da PLAN. W WATER L.Gl COMMENTS FIRE- BLDGI.XWER S STREE EN Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment Conditional Use Permit ADB Requirements .3 Other Zoning Requirements Underground Wiring Required Lot Slope IS% SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit :7 Tree Cutting Plan 9 Plat/Subdivision Requirements 9 Legal Description Verification 1 0 Quit Claim/Street Dedications Easements - Public/Private Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . -------------- 13 Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee Drainage Plan (On -Site) Setback - Top of Bank, Stream, Water Courses Setback - Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing Culvert Required Culvert Size ........... Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff 2 .. I Catch Basin Required Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access ........... . . . . . Sidewalk Required 4.1 Curb & Gutter Required "'00000.1 Curb Cut For Driveway Required ............ ........ .... ?. :226- Street Paving Required Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Required Street Name Sign Required Other Si6ning Required Bond Required For Public Improvements FEMA Map Check/Water Table Side Sewer Availability�_ 38 Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID Create Street File S. Existing Water Main Size . ..... . . "I . . . . . . . . - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Water Meter Size REHM .14 g Service Line Size Water Meter Charge Required Hydrant Required Hydrant Size Existing Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler IStreet Cut Imiscellaneous Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING ENGINEERING PUBLIC WORKS kv 11:4 'Jv PE 147tp WOW, 00 zi. ZY A 0 7'� Jr �J% vi t i. '.—lc pa 17 C:�! lu 10 40 3c A ti Jr" o t' i�il 4 'p or 4:1 All, tqx: ;..tf 0"'TREET FILE 6,90 - 199 - Are 04-40�. City of Edmonds 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 present on the subject property. The information needed to complete the Checklist should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical Areas inventories, maps, or soil surveys). * 4f77' 01 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 determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development permit application. With a signed copy of this fbrn3� the applicant should also submit a vicinity map of the parcel with enough detail that City staff can find and identify the subject parcel(s). In addition, the applicant is encouraged to include any other pertinent information or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to assist staff in completing their preliminary assessment of the site. I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers provided are factual, to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below). Owner / Applicant: Steve & Linda Mitchell Name Owner Title 17808 73rd P1. W. Street Address Applicant Representative: Martin R. Brown Nwne Buyer Title 3607 228th St. SW Street Address Edmonds, WA 98026 742-5979 Brier, WA 98035 778-3199 City, State, ZIP Phone City, State, ZIP Phone Ag6nat--e Date Signatj��- Date Critical Areas Checklist'' Site Information Project Name: Browr� Cons`truct.�,,,,n Permit Number: Site Location: 17 8 0 6 73 EdM. Property Tax Account Number: Approximate Site Size (adr�s or square feet): 12308 S.F. 4737000008004 Have you filled out a Critical Areas Checklist for a project on this site before? Ald General Site Conditions 1. Has the site been cleared or logged? Soils / Topography Date of most recent action: uv6-^ te-1 X+- V tv--ce-k r(-P- 2. In the Snohomish County Soil Survey, what is the mapped soil type(s)? a A10 3. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. F1 at: less than 5 feet elevation change over entire site. Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10 feet over a horizontal distance of 66 feet.) Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and. less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10 feet of horizontal distance.) Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site. Comments Hydrology[Vegetation 4. Site contains areas. of year-round standing water: A/0 . 1 5. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Ille � --Approx. Depth: 6. Site is in the floodway A/d floodplain— A40 of a water course. 7. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? MO -flows are year-round? Flows are seasonal? 8. Site is primarily: forested meadow _; shrubs mixed 9. Obvious wetland is present on site: &0 10. Wetland inventory or map indicates wetland present on site: 11. Critical Areas inventory or map indicates any Critical Area on site: Ald -----For City.Use Only STUDY REQUIRED: Critical areas study is required. CONDITIONAL WAIVER: Critical areas study not required if specified conditions satisfied. WAIVER: Critical areas study is not required. Determination Number. CA A a Reviewer c�l 1/9 Z__ Rev 3n7/92 Planner City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination Applicant: I Steve and Linda Mitchell Determination #: I CA-92-22 Project Name: I Brown Construction I Permit Number: I Site Location: 17806 73rd Pl. W. Property Tax Acct #: 1 4737-000-008-00 Project Description: New Home Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply): xx There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers; xx 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; xx The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas ordinance; xx The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval: 1. The applicant must follow the requirements of the Building Official for construction on steep slopes (ECDC title 19.05, 19.00-UBC chapter 70). 2. The applicant must follow the requirements of the Engineering Division for erosion control (ECDC title 18).. 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. 150 (B) of the Edmonds Communj Development Code. Stgphen F. Bullock NhI LS, Lf7 Name Sig�ature Date USE ZONE PE CITY OF EDMONDS URM T M CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION f5C6 N BER 9:3 01 Uk JOB 'F(APT OWNER NAME /NAME OF BUSH SS ADDRESS sU76 7 /76016, � 7 ECKI SUBDIVISION NO. 1.1�0 ONO Z MAILING ADDRESS PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP, TESCP Apirrmed a CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NU /"-.ER RW Permit Required EXISTING — REOUIRED DEDICATION Street Use 7 75 Permit A*Wd 0 PROPOSED Inspection Required NAME Sidermalk Required REMARKS C ADDRESS 2 7 CITY ZIP ELEPHONE NUMBER 77Y5 92&-3 NAME dWw(01V57— ENGINEERING MEMO DATED AEVIEWSY ADDRESS 0 jTDING;y, PLY SIZE 2-,?-g _5T_5�hl METE�71 2 ZIP ELEPHONE NUMBER ZD Z REMAR NO. OF FIXTIJRES u� L STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATI; VgV 4.1— SIGN AREA SEPAREVIEW I D include all ALLOWED PROPOSED COMPLETE 1EXEMPT eiasem;� _ZNo. 0 14 ;,7;LINE 0 rL EXP VARIANCE OR CU 7 REVIEW BY. TE I SETBACKS - F HEIGHT LOT ;,VEAAG FRONT Z—) SIDE 7, PPa_rcPee1=No` -4173 7-000-608 -4p.9- REMARKS '/7-PEAR T A NEW RESIDENTIAL 1Z PLUMBING UADDITION COMMERCIAL MECHANICAL El REMODEL APT, BLDG. El SIGN CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION rCODeE REPAIR CY.S. I FENCE I HEIGHT x _FT) =—/I/ 9 2.5- DEMOLISH WOODSTOVE SWIMPOOL SPECIAL INSPECTOR OCC PANCY PA INSERT HOT TUB/SPA U OCCU NT UARAGE REOUIRED 13 YES ZY70Z I GROUP LOAD G RETAINING WALL/ CARPORT L_J ROCKERY RENEWAL MARKS Z (TYPE OF USE. WJSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 305 Z ER OF STORIES NUMBER OF DW ;W1f1n171_ live- ELLING to UNITS olve 0 DESCA113E WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) �P/ysrx we r Sj,,y,61er FINAL INSPECTION REQUIRED VALUATION FEE --swee oc 4pr as. IXD PLAN CHECK FEE HEAT SOURCE: G BUILDING 102— IN) 7-DI 5 PLUMBING Plan Check No. OF= MECHANICAL This Permit Covers work to be done on private property ONLY. GRADINOIFILL Any construction on the public domain (curbs, sldewplks, driveways, marquees, etc.) will require separate permission. STATE SURCHARGE Permit Application: 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE Permit Llmft: I Year - Provided Work Is Started Wlthln 180 Days "AppliCant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENO. INSPECTION FEE successors in Interest, agrees to Indemnify, defend and hold harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, Its officials, I employees, and agents from any and all Claims for damages of ICE whatever nature, arising directly or Indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit Shall not be deemed to PLAN CHECK DEPOSIT modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordin:nc: Ox nor limit In any way the City's ability to enforce any ord n nc TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." I hereby acknowledge that I have read this applic Ion; that the Information given Is Correct; and that I am the own:1r, or the duly ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT 5 tate laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz. AUTHORIZES This application Is not a permit until �tate -'aws 't'at'� Led thereby, no person will be employed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her a Code of the State of Washington refiating to Workmen's Compenea. WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt Is ti— Ing.rance. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. s .Tu.. '.N= ,OWN�ER. OR AGENT)- OAT� DEPARTMENT TURE DATE CITY EDMONDS CALL FOR ED 6_Y/ DATE ATTENTION INSPECTION IT S UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR 771 - 0220 ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Ins A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM WORKSHEET OWNER ADDRESS 5: d-lki e vdy" IMPERVIOUS AREA CALC BY: PHONE: DATE: *****DESIGN DATA***** PIPE DIA PIPE LG le A/ 'z' 4 .1e 3-2 DETENTION PIPE LENGTH RIM ELEV- C MIN COVER 2*MAX COVER- 410 .5% - r/. SLOP, W mitt SPACE ROW ELEV- PIPE MIN. INV ELEV-- W'Pfl? CArCH BASIN CONrROL CArCH BASIN SYSTEM CROSS SECTION > ',oace /cze ELEV ORIFICE -it ki, WASHED GRAVEL OUTFLOW TR�NCH, MIN 10- LONG TOP AND 4 PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL FROM CONTROL - 'OUTLET 14, 4"PERF PIPE W/CAPS RUNOFF SPREADER OUTLET -2*� 2'.6- DEEP, 4'-6'OUARRY SPALLS .2. 3" DEEP, 3/4- CRUSHED ROCK FROM CONTROL OUTLET RIPRAP OUTLET 179-"4' A�O`CEF-TABLCE T+Ir.-�,t-4 -E MATERIAL N-!?.ADS SCh 40 PVC SDR .35 (ASTM D3034) FOOTING +DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED To DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: I - Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system, inspection before backfilling and for final inspections. APPROVED BY 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed 11�711" out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice DATE must be kept open at all times. REV 2/92 Page 6 of 6 Table 1 - Detention Pipe Size T .Lmpermeable Required Area Sq. Ft. I ------------- Vol Cu Ft 2000 ---------- 50 211 5 0 0 62 loon 7r, -8-7 4000 100 4500 1121 5000 125 Pipe Diameter 15 18 - 24" 30" ------------------------- 40 28 16 10 50 35 20 13 (!7 �O, so (W 3�2 15 Required pipe K1-8-) length in feet "ZV 90 100 6-3) 70 36 40 25 Note: Allowable Pi-pe Materials: Reinforced Concrete Aluminized Steel, Aluminum CMP Asphalt Coated N-12 ADS (Not permitted on roads) Table Outlet Orifice Sizes T mDermeable Area Sq. Ft. ------------- Outlet Orifice Diameter (Inches) 2 0 0 0 --------------------------------- t7. /0 5 0 01 3 0 0 (1) 01/4 —35.no 11 4 0 0 0 t A500 7/8 0 0 0 7 /e, Table 3 - Rectangular Catch Basin Requirements* Detention Max. size Catch Basin pipe diameter -------------- knockout Type 18" ---------- - ---------- Type I, C13 1 15 18" to 24" 26" Type IL, CB 16 -24'"o 36" .36 Type II, -type Basin) 36" to 42" 42" II, C13 19 (54" Basin) *Source: Assoc. Sand & Gravel Co. Standards Page 5 of 6 "A' i C. M-01 --wamox— C� Q5 9-0 - 19 � -��.7 Contractor: City of Edmonds RIGH.T-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION . PERMIT Permit Number. 13— 25B Issue Date: 7 A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: B. Type of Work (be specific): ;F,,vy -, 0 Mailing Address: V 9� State Licens e #: Building Permit # (if applicable): 2- Contact: Phone: *7 76f- *3 / '91 1�iability Insurance: -VACL- Bond; $ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): ##4 E. E] Commercial 0 Subdivision El City Project E] Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, C LE, WATER) Multi -Family EJSingle Family EJ/ Other INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: El Yes EJNo G. Size of Cut: x H. I Charge-t APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold the City ofEdmonds harmless from injuries, damages, or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments o employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legalproceedings including defense costs, and attorney fees by reason ofgranting this permit. THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUA NCE TO THE APPLICANT. Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application. A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220. Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion. Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes. Street shall be kept clean at all times. Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day; NO EXCEPTIONS. Ihave read the above statementsa4 nderstand thepermit requirements and thepink copy of thepermit will be available on site at all time or s ection purposes. Signature: Date: —,/Y— tor or Agent) CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK FOR CITY USE ONLY : Ole - APPROVED.BY TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER D)kYS SPECIAL CONDITIONS: COMMENTS: DATE: NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Engrg. I)iv. 1991 FIELD INSPECTION NOTES (Fund 111 Route copy to Street Dept.) Commentg: Diagram.: CONTRACTOR CALLED FOR INSPECTION El 'VES El NO Partial Work Inspection by, �.W.: Work Disapproved By: Date: FINAL APPROVAL BY: Date: - t4 - WU%�$14' I RF.CF.1VF-0 CITY OF EDMONDS 31993 SIDE PERMIT PT. PERMIT N 2 8492 9 PUBLIC \NORKS DE 7 -3 Address of Construction: 7SVC- Property Legal Descript ion (Include all easements): -72 7 — e26C— CC P" - Owner and/or Contractor: State License No. A)*77ly-4-17? A"M Building Permit No. 01eingle Family Multi -Family (No. of Units 11 Commercial El Public Invasion into City Right-of-Way)(No 0 Yes RW Construction Permit Cross other Private Property:XNo 0 1. Yes Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement I certify that I �avJrea'j,4_'�s 11 comply with'all city requirements as indicated on the bZk ofthe' Permit Card. Z _— Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * OFFICE USE..ONLY,.... ------------------- FOR INSPECTION CALLOTAM, PUBLI ' C WORKS DEPT. 7 71-od-,;L-0 Permit Fee: 00 Issued By Tru n k Charge: 5-1 00 Date Issued: 7-/2--17 Assessment Fee: Receipt No Lid No.:— 2V5- Partial Inspection: Date —Initial — Comments Reason Rejected: Date —Initial — I Final Inspection Approved: Date/-Q-_'23 Initial/ —A' 4"p ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant Revised 3190 Side Sewer Drawing The City of Edmonds EASEMENT NO - ------------------- ---------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS F1 LID NO - ------------------ ASMT. NO - ---------------- OWNER------------------------------------------------ ----------------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR ---------------------------------------------------------- ......................... PERMIT NO. & -- - --- Z JOB ADDRESS Tlf . ........ ................. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO - --------- ----------------------- BLOCK NO - ------------------------------------ c", a 70 0 k m c-; aj� a M - 0 n Q cl C., ci r, Ic 7-3 CD NAMEOF ADDITION --------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------------------- ................ -1 -1, ---*- I 374- J EEEEE V PP.Dip. C&;? Approved: u 1E. w. PWW-0001-1 1/75 (REVA 1/78) DATE7 ------------ - By ....... . .... ......... ,Z-'V5PEr-7-E9 by - -S- L-4-L-P WATM se-mvice la Drawing The City of Edmonds .777.- t. I EASEMENT NO - -------------------------------------------- NEW CONSTRUCTION Eg REPAIRS F-1 LID NO - ------------------- - ASMT. NO - ------------------ OWNER------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ JOB ADDRESS -1-'7.!B.C)G ------- 73-RD --- kk,� - W- --------------------------- P�avqzlamm — lq� PWW-0001-11/75(REV.11/78) CONTRACTOP- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ PERMIT NO - -------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . .......................... ---------- BLOCK NO . ................. - ----------------- .................. ------------------------------------------------------ ------------------ ?7 Z� Z5 -12 ................... ........ ;c� ---------- ----------- !-i—lz-�� --------- ----------------- E '�j E cl .-3 up -�-2j ci cc cr- 2 C) cl., E Llj ///'Approved: PL.W. rl- VA-53 ............. / At DATE ...... L .................... --- By ---------------------------- STREET FILE PROPOSED MITCHELL RESIDENCE, LOT 8 73RD PLACE WEST EDMONDS, WASHINGTON JOB Nd. 9606-11G I TABLE OF CONTENTS Scope Page 1 Project Description Page 2 Site Description Page 2 Subsurface Soil -and Ground Water conditions Page 4 Soil Conditions Page 4 Ground Water Page 5 Laboratory.Testing Page 6 Conclusions Page 6 Slope Stability Page 6 Recommendations Page 7 Site Preparation Page 8 Grading Page 9 Erosion Control Page 9 Foundation Design Page 10 Drainage Page 11 Structural Fill Page 11 Retaining Walls and Lateral Forces Page 12 Construction Monitoring Page 13 General Page 13 Appendix A-- Test Boring Location Map Appendix B Test Boring Logs Appendix C Laboratory Results Appendix D Unified Soils Classification System CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. 12911 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821-5080 KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 820-6953 May 7, 1991 Job No. 9006-11G Linda Mitchell 17808 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington 98026 Reference: Proposed Mitchell Residence, Lot 8 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Ms. Mitchell: At your request, we have conducted a subsurface soils investigation -for the above site. The following report summarizes our findings and pr . dsents conclusions and preliminary recommendations f or the proposed project. SCOPE The scope of our study was to determine the subsurface soil and ground water conditions in order to formulate conclusions and recommendations which conform to the city of Edmonds' Meadowdale Checklist per ordinance 12661 for construction and Site Evaluation development of the site. . At this time no building plans have been developed; therefore, it will be necessary for us to review the building, grAding and drainage plans once they are available so we can update our report to conform with the City . of Edmonds requirements. The site investigation was based on a detailed, visual surface reconnaissance' of the site, a review of the available geologic information, one (1) portable augerboring and one (1) hand, drilled boring. this report presents , conclusions and preliminary recommendations for site preparation, grading, foundation design, CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 2 lateral pressures, drainage, erosion control, and construction monitoring requirements. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand that the proposed project is to * consist of the construction of a new residence utilizing a daylight basement.. No building plans have been developed at this time. We were provided with a site plan which was prepared by Darell Ford, dated November 13, 1990. This site plan shows the proposed residence location and the existing topography using two (2) foot contours. Based on the proposed building footprint, the proposed residence will cover approximately 2200 square feet and will be located on the central and southeastern portions of the property. The City of Edmonds requires a review of the final building plans by our office to confirm that our recommendations were properly interpreted. The existing. topography and the proposed house footprint as shown on the site plan are presented in Appendix A. SITE DESCRIPTION The site is an undeveloped, irregular shaped property located immediately northeast of the cul-de-sac of 73rd Place West which is south of the Meadowdale area in Edmonds, Washington. The site is bounded by a northeast -southwest. trending shallow gully to the north and existing residences to the northwest, south, and east. The proposed residence site is located near or on a relatively flat terrace at t . he top of moderately to steeply sloping ground on a west -facing hillside. We observed no indications of past slope instability on the property. CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 3 As determined from on -site visual observations and the site map', the ground sloped down to the west and northwest on the southern a nd northern portions of the property, respectively, from an existing residence and a landscaped yard along the eastern property line. on the northern end of the property, the ground sloped down at about thirty (30) to thirty-five (35) degrees for a vertical distance of twenty (20) feet before flattening out at a dry gully. on the southern end, the ground sloped down at approximately twenty (20) degrees to a relatively f lat terrace. This terrace was approximately thirty (30) f eet wide at the southern edge of the property and tapered to a point sixty (60) feet north of the south property line. The western edge of this terrace appeared to be oversteepened by the placement of fill material. The ground then sloped down towards the west at approximately thirty-f ive (35) degrees for a vertical distance of about sixteen (16.) f eet before flattening out at the perimeter of the existing residence on Lot 9 and the ground adjacent to the cul-de-sac. The site had been cleared of mature trees and was presently vegetated with grasses and brush. Horsetails were observed at the base of the slope and adjacent to the existing residence on Lot 9 located to the west. Soft soil with weak seepage was also observed in this area. The site is not located within the Meadowdale la ndslide complex as shown on the "Landslide Hazard Map" by GeoEngineers, Inc. presented in the City of Edmonds I '.'Meadowdale Site Evalua ' tion Checklist". Based on our review of the above map, the. site is located about 5000 feet south of the southern extent of the mapped slide area. CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 4 SUBSURFACE SOIL AND GROUND WATER CONDITIONS The site subsurface conditions were determined by drilling one (1) test boring and excavating one (1) test hole using a hand -driven split -spoon sampler on March 24, 1991. A portable, hollow -stem auger was used to advance Test Boring 11. -Samples were obtained from selected depths in accordance with ASTM D-1586 sampling procedures. Test Boring #1 was drilled near the southern end of the flat terrace. The hand -driven test hole (Hand Boring ji) was located on the slope immediately below the northern tip of the terrace area. The boring locations were selected by an engineering geologist from our office -and located by pacing relat ive to known landmarks. The boring locations are shown' on the site plan presented in Appendix A. The soil samples obtained were described in the field and were classified using the, Unified Soils Classification System. The boring logs and soil descriptions are presented in Appendix B. A copy of the Unified Soils Classification System is presented in Appendix C. All elevations mentioned in this report are referenced to the existing ground surface at the time of our study. soil.conditions Test Boring #1 showed approximately three (3) feet of a loose, poorly sorted sand overlying interbedded, hard clayey and sandy silt. This soil was observed to grade into a sequence of very dense sandy silt, silty sand and sand below five (5) feet. - Test Boring 11 was terminated at eighteen and one-half (18 1/2) feet below the exis ting ground surface. Hand Boring #1 showed approximately eight (8) feet of uncontrolled fill consisting of wet to saturated silty sand. Below the CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 5 uncontrolled fill was a loose to medium dense, wet sand and silty sand. The test boring was terminated at eight and one-third (8 1/3) feet due to the limiting driving forces used in this hand - driven boring. The site lies within an area that has been geologically mapped near the contact of Vashon Till and the older, underlying Advance Outwash as shown on the "Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Washington" (USGS MF-1541, Minard, 1983). The interbedded hard silts and very dense silty sand and sand are generally consistent with lower sections of the till and the upper section of the advance outwash. Ground Water In Test Boring fl, ground water was encountered at the base of the loose sand between two and one-half (2 1/2) feet and in the very dense sand between seventeen (17) and eight een (18) feet below the surface. In Test Boring #2, the uncontro lled fill was observed to be wet throughout this soil unit.* Mottling wa s found in the soil immediately below the uncontrolled fill. It is our conclusion that the ground water found in Test Boring 11 is transmitted �through relatively permeable. granular soil layers or lenses. The underlying and/or overlying silts and silty sand beds are relatively impermeable and confine any appreciable ground water .flow to the permeable sandy soils. Horsetails were observed within the area of weak seepage at the toe of the steep slope. This area is roughly at the same elevation as -the observed ground water seepage in the very dense sand in Test Boring *1 and may indicate that this water table intersects the base of the fill slope. CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 6 Laboratory Testing 'All soil samples obtained from the test borings were returned to our office for further visual examinations. In addition to visual examinations, representative samples were tested for grain sizel moisture contents, and whe . re applicable, plasticand liquid limits as aids in soil classification. The results of these tests are included in Appendix D'. CONCLUSIONS The site is suitable f or the. proposed development, provided our. recommendations are closely followed and special precautions are taken. We anticipate that a spread and stri * p footing foundation can be used if the footings bear directly, on the native, very . dense and/or hard soils found below the uncontrolled fill and loose sand. The most appropriate approach for control of storm drainage from footing drains and impervious surfaces is to utilize an enclosed conveyance system which routes the water to the bottom Of the slope and then to a suitable outlet on the relatively flat, western edge of the property. Slope StabtilllitYy The provided site map shows the western edge of the proposed residence to be situated on the slope. We understand that the building will utilize a daylight basement so a cut approximately ten (10) feet high would be excavated into the west sloping hillside. It is our conclusion that the uncontrolled fill mantling the lower west sloping hillside and the slope immediately north of the CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 7 terrace is potentially unstable. In order to stabilize the slope before construction commences-1 the uncontrolled fill should be regraded. as recommended in the Grading section of this report. The native soils found below the uncontrolled fill and loose sand presently appear stable, and would be expected to present little risk of slope failure.' However, on the slope north of the fill area, surface sloughing and movement can be expected in heavily weathered soil mantling the relatively steep.slope, especially in areas where the vegetation has been cleared. While this should not affect the stability of the proposed residence during or after construction, it may affect the pool area on Lot 9. We conclude that the- construction of the residence will not decrease the stability of the site or the surrounding area if our recommendations are carefully followed. The construction of a -daylight basement will minimize the potential of slope instability on the- slope below the proposed residence due to the decreased load from the removal of the excavated volume of soil, and the removal of uncontrolled fill. We have conducted a slope stability analysis of the slope before, during and after construction to confirm the observations presented above, using a simplified Bishop method of analysis on a computer program designed for this purpose. We utilized estimated soil parameters based on our experience and the test boring 'IN" value (standard penetration test). PRELIMINARY RECOMMENDATIORS The native soils on the site are very moisture sensitive due to the relatively high amount of fine-grained materials 'present. We therefore recommend performing site preparation and excavation work during an extended period of dry weather to avoid excessive costs CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 8 and construction problems associated with soil deterioration. If wet weather construction is unavoidable, conformance with specific recommendations for site preparation, drainage and erosion control will be required. Site Preparation All uncontrolled f ill areas should be regraded as recommended in the Grading section of this report bef ore construction begins. All building and paved areas should be stripped of debris, topsoil.and any uncontrolled fill down to native, bearing soil..*Care should be taken to ensure that no debris or excavated soil is placed on the slope face or near the top of the slope. Preferably, all excavated material would be removed from the site altogether. The ground surf ace and existing vegetation on the slope outside the building area should be disturbed as little as possible during and after construction. All disturbed areas of the slope should be planted with deep-rooted vegetation immediately after construction. All excavation subgrades should be graded or drained to avoid uncontrolled runoff of water to the top of the slope or onto the slope face. If necessary, temporary construction drainage, tightlined to a suitable drainage point should be used. Runoff. water should be directed away from the slope and the excavation to a suitable outlet No runoff 'water should be discharged onto the slope. Based on our subsurface exploration, we anticipate that ground water seepage, should be minimal in any basement excavation. However, if ground water seepage is found to be greater than expected, we should be engaged to observe the cut and to make further recommendations regarding cut slope stability and drainage. It may be necessary to place hand driven sand point drains and/or shoring. CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 9 It may also be necessary to provide subdrainage to improve the flow of the ground water which presently exits at the seep near the property line. The details of this drainage should be developed after the site is opened up. Grading We should be engaged to review the proposed grading plan. All uncontrolled fill areas outside the building area should be regraded to a 2.5(H):l(V) slope or flatter to minimize any future instability. Temporary cuts for the basement less than six (6)' feet high in the glacially overconsolidated native soils may be sloped at a 1/2(H):I(V) grade. Any unsupported cuts over six (6) feet high in the native very dense soils should be- sloped at a grade of I (H) : I (V) or f latter f or temporary construction purposes. if easements cannot be obtained for the southern edge of the basement cut, shoring may be necessary. We should be engaged to observe the excavation of all cuts over six (6) f eet high to evaluate slope stability. Erosion Control Erosion control during construction will be required to protect all exposed soils. We recommend placing a filter fabric fence downslope from the proposed excavation level. This barrier should be constructed to prevent.any sediments from being deposited on the lower elevations of the west slope. No excavated soils should be placed on or near the slope. We recommend covering all cuts with plastic sheeting during and after construction to minimize the potential for erosion and soil CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 10 deterioration. The plastic sheeting should be, anchored to the top of the slope with stakes, and weighted down on the f ace of the slope with sandbags. We recommend that we be engaged to observe the placement of all erosion controls. All erosion control measures should, conform to the City of Edmonds' specifications. Immediately after construction is finished, all disturbed areas of the slope outside the building area should be seeded with deep- rooted vegetation or covered with other suitable landscaping to resist surface erosion. Foundation Design Spread and strip footings may bear directly on a firm, horizontal subgrade of the native, very dense or hard soil consisting of interbedded- clayey silt, silt, silty sand and sand. The native bearing s ' oil is suitable to support spread and strip footings designed to a maximum safe bearing value of 2000 psf if the soil is firm, undisturbed, free of organic material, and does not become wet prior to concrete placement. A one-third (1/3) increase of the bearing value may be used for the calculation of wind and seismic loading. Spread and strip footings should have a minimum width as determined by local building codes and should be placed at least eighteen (18).. inches below final -grade for frost protection. Any soft, wet or yielding areas within the foundation area should be overexcavated down to firm ground. Structural fill which is placed as recommended in the Structural Fill section of this report may be used to raise the grade to subgrade elevations if the overexcavated area is limited in area. Structural fill should not be used to raise grades on the slope. EM CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 11 Drainage Footing drains should be placed at the base of all footings and tightlined to the storm sewer system. We recommend using a four (4) inch diameter, rigid, perforated pipe which is bedded in several inches of pea gravel and backfilled with at least twelve (12) inches of pea gravel. Roof and parking area drains should be tightlined to the storm . s . ewer system. These drains should be separate from the footing drains and from each other. No water should be discharged onto the western slope face or to the top of the slope. Structural Fill If structural fill is required to repair- the foundation subgrade, i t should be placed on a horizontal subgrade of f irm, undisturbed, native bearing soil in maximu m eight (8) inch, loose lif ts and compacted to at least ninety-five (95) percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density value. We recommend that we be engaged to review all proposed fills. The on -site native soils are extremely moisture sensitive due to the presence of fine-grained materials. The on -site native soils may be used i;ut if the moisture content is over the optimum level, the material will have to be dried or discarded. If imported fill is required to repair the subgrade, it should conform to the following gradation: May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 12 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL sieve size 4 inch #4 1200.. Percent Passing 100 25-75 5 maximum, based'on the percent passing the 14 sieve. We recommend that we be engaged to observe and test the placement of any structural fill to confirm that the fill has been placed in accordance with our recommendation s. Retainina Walls and Lateral Forces All retaining and basement walls should be backfilled with a free - draining, imported granular fill which conforms to the structural fill gradation presented in the preceding section of this report. Where -the backfill supports structural features such as entries, stairs and paved areas, the material should be placed in maximum twelve (12) inch loose lifts and compacted to at least ninety-five (95) percent of the ASTM D-1557 maximum dry density value. We recommend compacting the wall backfill with light weight,. hand - operated equipment to avoid overstressing the wall. A - f our (4)._ inch diameter, rigid, perf orated pipe f ooting drain which is bedded in several inches of pea gravel and backf illed with at least twelve (12) inches of pea gravel, should be placed at the base of all retaining walls. The drain should continue along the length of t he wall (s) a nd should be tightlined to the drainage system. Rigid retaining walls that cannot deflect when backfilled 'may be designed to resist an at -rest lateral force of 55 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. Flexible retaining walls that can def ldct at least CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 13 0.001H when backfilled may be designed to resist an active lateral force of 35 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. These forces assume a horizontal backfill with no surcharge. For any other configuration, we should be contacted so that we may comment on design suitability. The native soil may be assumed to have a passive earth pressure of 406 pcf equivalent fluid pressure. We recommend that we be engaged to review the final plans to verify that our preliminary recommendations have been properly interpreted. Construction Monitoring We should be engaged to observe all proposed cuts on the slope and to observe all erosion control placement. We recommend that we be 'engaged to observe all site preparation and the installation of drainage a nd to confirm that bearing soils have been reached for the building foundation. Structural fill placement and compaction f or subgrade repair should be observed and tested, respectively, by our office. These recommendations are for engineering review and goes beyond any testing agency involvement which may be required. General We r . ecommend that we be engaged to review the building, grading and drainage plans to verify that our preliminary recommendations have been properly interpreted and implemented into the plans, and so that we can make adjustments to or report for conformance with the City of Edmonds' Meadowdale Site Evaluation Checklist per ordinance #2661. We expect the on -site soil conditions to reflect our findings; however, some variations may occur. Should soil conditions be CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL May 7, 1991 Linda Mitchell Job No. 9006-11G Page 14 encountered that cause concern and/or are not discussed herein, Cascade Geotechnical should be contacted immediately to determine if additional or alternate recommendations are required. This report has been prepared f or the exclusive use of Linda Mitchell for the specific application to the proposed residence located on Lot 8 at 17808 73rd Place West in Edmonds, - Washington" in accordance with generally accepted soils and, foundation engineering'practic'es. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Thank you for this opportunity to assist you with this project. Should you have any questions, please feel free.to contact us at any time. Sincerely, CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL Geoi7ge E. Lamb, P.FI President and Princ Jason Olsson Engineering Geologist J6:pg 5 T Um N MITCHELL SITE HAND & TEST BORING LOCATION MAP 310 8 H.B., PROPOSED HOUSE T.B. 1 w w (r co FROM TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY SUPPLIED BY THE MITCHELLS Job No. SCALE 30' FWCASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. 03/24/91 1 LOCATIONS ARE APPROXIMATE 12919 N.E. 126TH PLACE (206) 821-5080 KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 823-2203 Date —FD---By Eng 9006-1 1G HLA Project JobNo. 9006-11G Date 03/24/91 MITCHELL SITE Boring No. 1 Dwn.BY HLA Driller DRILLING UNLIMITED Drill Type HOLLOW STEM AUGER (PORTABLE) Geo/Eng J. OLSSON Hole Dia. 4" Fluid NONE Penetration M Soil Description & Classification Notes 0 C1 4) -a a Cn E 0 0 SOD. 4% SAND; as below, except moist. (SP) -- SAND; top 6", light brown with mottling, loose, wet to saturated.(SP) - 9 16 30 46 CLAYEY SILT/SANDY SILT; bottom 1', brownish gray, very dense, - 03/24/91 5— moist, interbedded. (CL/ML) - 35 50 - +50 SANDY SILT/SILTY SAND: gray, with trace gravel, very dense, moist, - interbedded. (ML/SW) 21 50 - +50 SANDY SILT/SAND: as above. (ML/SW) 10 moo -.11:- .0 ..o o' 00 22 50 +50 SAND; light gray, with trace gravel, very dense, damp. (SW) 15 .0 SAND: top 6", gray, with trace gravel, very dense, saturated. (SW) - - 03/24/91 21 50 +50. SANDY/CLAYEY SILT; bottom 6", gray, very dense, moist. (ML/CL) - T.D. 18.5' - 20 25 3b— Notes: Ground water seepage encountered @ 2.5'- 3' and 17'- 18' within sand units. Conditions shown represent our observations at the time and location of the field work, modifications based on lob tests. analysis, and geological and engineering judgement. The" conditions may not exist at other times and locations, even in close proximity. This information was gathered as part of our investigation, and we are net responsible for any Lae or interpretation of the information by at CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. TEST BORING LOG Page 1 of 1 H.A. Soil Description & Classification H.A Soil Description & Classification 0 8' UNCONTROLLED FILL: light brown 0- MO to light gray, wet to saturated, - silty sand. -5 -18'- 8'4"SAND/SILTY SAND; brown with some mottling, with trace gravel, loose to medium dense. (SW/SM) T. D. 8'4" -10 -10 Notes: Notes: H.A. Soil Description & Classification H.A. Soil Description & Classification 0- 0- -10 -10 Notes: Notes: CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. HAND AUGER LOG Project MITCHELL SITE Conditions shown represent our observations at the time and location of the field work. modifications based on lab tests. analysis, and geological and engineering judgement. These conditions may not exist at other times and locations, even in ciose proximity. This information was gathered as part of our investigation, and we we not responsible for any use or interpretation of the information by at re. Date - 03/24/91 Job No. 9006-11 G Dwn. By HLA. T Geo/Eng J0 CASCADE TESTING LABDRATDRY. INC. 7ESTINWG INSPECTION/ENGINEERSIGEOLOGISTS 12919 N.E. 126th PLACE KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON. 98034 [M) a23-9800 SEATTLE (206)525-6700 ENERETT (206)259-0817 GRAIN SIZE DISTRIBUTION TEST REPORT Cu A 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.0011 GRAIN SIZE - mm Test % +3" % GRAVEL SAND % SILT % C 1 2 1 - �H Project No.: 9006-IIG Date :04/01/91 P-roject: MITCHELL RESIDENCE *Location: Sample #1 (7.5"- 9") MATERIAL DESCRIPTION Remarks: WATER CONTENT: 3% CHECKED w ONKAIREMB anommumon MOMMEMNIN nommoommen women 2;;;;nzll Wo UNIFIED SOILS CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL LETTER DESCRIPTION GW Well - graded gravels or gravel - sand mixtures, CLEAN little or no fines Poorly graded gravels orgravel-sand mixtures. GRAVELS GRAVEL & GP little or no fines GRAVELLY SOILS M Silty gravels or gravel -sand -silt mixtures GRAVELS GC Clayey gravels or gravel- sand -clay mixtures COARSE WITH FINES GRAINED Well -graded sands or gravelly sands. little or SOILS CLEAN SW no fines Poorly graded sands or gravelly sands, little SANDS SAND & SP or no fines SANDY SOILS SM Silty sands,or sand -silt mixtures SANDS SC Clayey sands or sand -clay mixtures WITH FINES Inorganic Silts & very fine sands, rock flour. silty ML or clayey fine sands. or clayey silts with slight' SILTS & CLAYS plasticity Inorganic clays of low to medium plasticity, CL gravelly clays, sandy clays, silty clays or lean clays Liquid Limit Less Than 50 organic silts & organic silty clays of low FINE 1111111 OL plasticity GRAINED Inorganic silts. micaceous or diatomaceous fine SOILS 1111HE MH sandy or silty soils, elastic silts SILTS & CLAYS CH Inorganic clays of high plasticity. lat clays Liquid Limit Greater Than 50 Organic clays of medium to high plasticity. OH organic silts HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS .7 PT Peat or other highly organic soils TOPSOIL Humus & duff layer F I L-I.- Uncontrolled. with highly variable constituents SYM BOL DATUM NOTE 2" O.D. Split Spoon Sampler Sample Interval Ring or Shelby Sampler Sample Interval PSampler Pushed Sample Interval Other Sample Type Sample Interval SYM BOL DATUM NOTE Water Level Date Recorded Ts Torvane Reading qu Penetrometer Reading iwater Observation Well Tip Elevation CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL, INC. KEY CHART LO �46 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. 12016 115TH AVENUE N.E., BLDG. H (206) 821-5080 KIRKLAND, WASHINGTON 98034 FAX: (206) 820-6953 February - 10, 1993 Job No. 9006-11 G Martin Brown 3607 228th St. S.W. Brier, Washington 98036 Attention: Martin Brown Reference: Plan Review Mitchell Site 17808 73rd Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr.'Brown: op%agr Z51 REET FILE RECEIVED FEB 1 6 1993 PERMIT COUNTER As you requested, we have completed our review of the set of building plans you provided. The following letter summarizes our conclusions relative to the geotechnical recommendations as outlined in our Soils Report, dated May 7, 1991. We are also providing a minimum risk statement in this letter as requested by The City of Edmonds. SCOPE The scope of this work consisted of a review* of the set of building plans you provided, a review of the available information in our files, and the preparation of this letter. The purpose of this letter is to provide a summary of our review of the plans as well as an evaluation of whether our recommendations regarding geotechnical concerns, as stated in our Soils Report dated May 7, 1991, were interpreted accurately and incorporated in the plans. PROJECT DESCRIPTION We understand from reviewing the set of building plans, that the proposed. development will consist of the construction of a two (2) story, single family home with a slab on grade basement grade floor. We understand from the plans that the. structure win utilize a spread footing foundation. We were provided with the following sheets in the set of building plans prepared by Phillip N. King, Designer: An undated site plan, an undated and unnumbered elevation plan, and Sheets 2 of 9 through Sheets 9 of 9, dated December 11, 1992. 4200 MERIDIAN, SUITE 216 (206) 647-8588 BELLINGHAM, WASHINGTON 98226 FAX: (206) 671-4329 CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. February 10, 1993 Job No. 9006-11G PLAN REVIEEW Based on our review of the set of plans and our soils report, it appears that the plans are in general conformance with our recommendations regarding geotechnical. concerns as stated in our Soils Report, dated May 7, 1991. However, there are internal discrepancies or omissions in the set of plans which must be addressed. 0 We understand from the site plan that cuts up to eight (8) feet in depth will be made during the excw.,ation cf dh. footina foundation. We recommend that these. cuts be sloped at a grade. of I (H): 1 (V) or flatter for temporary construction purposes. If adequaae s-pace it not available to slope the cuts adequately and/or adverse soil conditions are encountered on -site, then shoring would become necessary. Additional recommendations for deep cuts as stated in our Soils Report, dated May 7, 1991, should be followed. * We were not provided with the grading, drainage, and erosion control plans in the set of plans that we reviewed. We recommend that these be implemented in the final set of plans and that we be engaged to review these plans before the initiation of construction to insure that our recommendations as provided in our Soils Report, dated May 7, 1991, were properly incorpor ated in the plans. 0 On the building section detail (Sheet 9 of 9), the following footing drain specification was provided on the plans: ", 4 inch perforated drain with 12 inch gravel cover " We recommend using a four (4) inch diameter, rW, perforated pipe which is bedded in several inches of gravel and backfilled with at least twelve (12) inches of pea gravel or washed rock. 0 In the plans that we reviewed, a capillary break was not provided for the slab on grade fl-oors. We recommend that a four (4) inch layer of clean sand, pea gravel, or crushed rock having less than five (5) percent material passing the #200 sieve, based on the fraction passing the #4 sieve, should be placed below the floor slab as a capillary break. We recommend placing a vapor barrier between Lie bottom of the slab and the capillary'break. If desired, one (1) to two (2) inches of clean sand may be placed over the vapor barrier to aid in concrete curing. 0 In addition to the recommendations provided in our Soils Report dated May 7, 1991, we were asked by you through a phone conversation to provide a statement of risk evaluation for a 25 year seismic event in the vicinity of the site. Based on our analysis and experience in this. area, it is our conclusion that there is less than a 30% chance of movement on the above referenced site within a 25 year period. 0) CASCADE GEOTECHNICAL INC. February 10, 1993 GENERAL Job No. 9006-11G The conclusions provided here are based on our understanding of the project at this time. The plans should be modified to reflect the conclusions as stated above and those provided in our Soils Report, dated May 7, 1991. In addition, we should be engaged to review the final set of building plans prior to the commencement of construction to confirm that our recommendations have been properly interpreted. We recommend that we be engaged continuously to monitor the stability of the on -site slopes during construction. We recommend that we be engaged to monitor all excavations so that we can provide on -site recommendations, should any adverse soil'and/or ground water conditions be encountered. We recommend that we be engaged to observe site preparation and earthwork to verify subgrade conditions and confirm bearing soils. We should also be engaged to observe and test the placement -of structural fill and the backfill of all retaining walls. These recommendations are for engineering review and go beyond any testing agency involvement which may be required. This letter has been prepared exclusively for Mr. Martin Brown for the specific application to the proposed development at the Mitchell Site in Edmonds, Washington, and is in accordance with generally accepted soils and foundation engineering practices. No warranty, expressed or implied is made. Sincerely, CASCADE GEOTEO' 6 7, rge E. Presi ent EX P I R E S 1 -2 �2> 3 Anh-Tuan Ngo Dinh Civil Enigineer ril M111 Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/. topography/ hydrology/vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: 2. 3. 4. 5. CAFileNo:. 71 1.dul E�_�a W W �1 \",I L's ED IM Property TaxAccount Number: 00 ?)rl (Do 0 0 0� 00 INTER Approxninate Site Size (acres or square feet): RMIT COL Is. this site currently developed? yes; —no. If yes; how is site developed? Describe the zeneral site topo Flat less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.. Rolling: slopes on - site- generally; less than15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over 'a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site 6f more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a'vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance. of less than, 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6 . Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. De th; p 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx.DeOth: 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? 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;shrubs* mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) 11. Obvious wetland is present ori site: For City Staff Use 0 . nly (4Di) 1 Plan Check Number, if applicable? tA 0 Y16 oiveyl. 2. Site is Zoned? P- S 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? 6- Al &-&VVVDD4 IAIVIO OL V) I(AVId WVVIRI D 12-e,5 9/ 2) — A-1 drAlm) t) d cwaVrAlu g;,avA&.A InaM I E5 - n n -r. r--? 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indic�ates Critical Area on site? &,De, i UY) h a 7,a rd-., MMICAtt� fn�iM hA-1). -P,(Af7t Of FrDF��j 9it& ff:., f�IA-;;rIlf-014 Lj 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area?. NJ 0 VWi- e7 U 0 f f� u a I t-p yn A -H ri cA I d ff &y vvi i vi 61-h Dyl DETERMINATION STUDY REQUIRED X. WAIVER Reviewed bv- 0 1 NV&,l (10 Cc4 OL/I Date: 00i I 1A /U015- #P20 City. of Edmonds Development Services Department Planning Division Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 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 thb application to the City. The purpose of the Checklist is. to enable City staff to determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or may be, pre -sent on. the subject property. The information needed to xomplete� the Checklist :,should be easily available from observations of the site or data available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories,, rr�aps, 'or soil surveys). Date Received: 9 / / f, /;a- 00; City Receipt#: Z :2 Z 5-& Critical Areas File#: 7,0015-011+1 Critical Areas Checklist Fee: $135.00 Date Mailed to Applicant: A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fill out the checklist,. sign and dateit, and submit it to the City. The City will review -the checklist, make a precursory site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent steps necessary to complete a development pennit application. Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed copy of this, form to,assik City staff in finding and locating the specific piece of property described on this form. In addition, the applicant, shall include other pertinent information .(e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or studies in conjimction with this Checklist to assistant staff in completingtheir prelirriinary,assessment of the site. The undersign ed applicant and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees to irlease, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including i-ea.sonable attorney'S fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incorn plete information fumished by the ipplicant,-his/her/its agents or employees. B 'my §ignattlie'-I c&rfif�46t the information'.aind exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the�best of y 2 MY kn6wie'dit andihitJ.'ar authorized to fil this ication on the behalf of the: owner as'listed below. DATE -0- �SIGNATIJRE Ot APPLICANT/A0,E:NT Property Owner's Authorization 'By -my signature, I.cer* that I have auth orized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for die subject land use application, and grant my permission for.the public officials..and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the purposes of inspection and attenda�t to this application. DATE SIGNAITIUM Of 0 PLLASE PRINT C.LEA_ �OwneHcant, Applicant Representative: r/App Pken �ino(CL 1_,� -V C, ke I Name Naxne. W -Street Address Streei Address C� on `M5 -WA city State n City State zip -7 2-- 6ct Telephone: Telephone: Email address (optional): 10 n� _SM Q Email Address (optional): comca5t nit .STREET FILE 11 060 IV , o -TV ln;kaf-d ru -Ps4*4ioK pk Avwnw,) tl ATJOkL M" (4 2 S�) Mko Flk�e, U., iA - 2* 11 . q za