18223 84TH PL W.PDF111111111111
7994
18223 84TH PL W
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOONT/PARCEL NUMBER:
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS:
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT
DRAINAGE PLAN DA
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: —
PERMITS (OTHER):
DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver El Study Required n Waiver
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED -
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S).#:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT 4:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LTD #:
BLOCK:
LATEMMSrsTomiskStreet File Checklist-doc
NOTICE:
.K.-to ... vva rr a n
or
I
The information *shown on the attached
map(s) was comPil,ed for use by the City of
Edmonds its Employees and Consultants.
he
The City of Edm.onds does not * warrant t
accuracy of anything set for.th on these
map(s). Any person or entity -requesting a
copy should conduct an independent
inquiry regarding the inform'ation shown on
ff�e -map(s), including, but not limited to,
th'e lociation of any sewer stub shown. Such
sewer stubs may or may, not exist and may
or may not exist at the location shown.
Neither the city of Edmo'nds nor its
empl-o-yee-s o-r office.rs -sh-a-1-1 be 11a.b-Fe for it -he
information given' on this rnap(s), nor for
any one representation provided based
u pon . said map(s).
CITY OF EDMONDS
CIVIC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT
SIDE SEWER �PERMIT
STREET FILE
CaJ1 PRospeet 6-1107 when work.
is ready for inspection. (No mspec; C-S
tions Saturday, Sunday or holidays. A '1 3
ADDREss---- ---------- 18_223._�n...8.4th..Avenue --- West ---------------------------------------- - --------------------_ ................................................
OWNER ----- -------------- C4A_* .... MCDrmzwhie� ------------------------------ CONTRACTop --------- RQy --- Allen ...............................................
Perrmssion is granted .-. ............ aept._ ---------- 9_ 19..U., for ........................ days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer
with City Seivers in accordance with application or. file and governing ordinances.
ATTENTION IS CALLED 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 axea. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected.
NOTE No. 2—Obtain full informstion regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit.
NOTE No. 3—Top of side sewer must.have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches inside property line; minimum grade of 2%.
No bends in grade sharper than % will be permitted.
NOTE No. 4—Trenches in street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition- Contractors shall be responsible for
failure due to improper work wb.ich may develop within one year of completion.
NOTE. No. 5—It is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its appur-
tenances except to insert the pipe into the wye.
APPLKATION
for
The City of Edmonds STREE7 F& ON SME SEWER PERrMT
rm NEW CONSTRUCTION E] REPAIRS
OWNER .......................
ADDRESS .....
-----------------------------------------------
. ... . ....... .............
—EASEMENT No . ..........................................
6,
CONTRACTOR ---------
....... i ----------- -------- * ------ ------------------------------------- PERMIT No. .................
LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . ......... 1� ................................. BLOCK No . ............. .......
NAMEOF ADDITION .......... 7.-e . . ......................................................................................
a
APPROVED
SEP
Approved:
-Nothing in this permit approval proem shall be
interpreied as all6wingr or ��ttjng the
In ce of anj� rrently ing illegal,
I or unIq%ittit building, stxudm
nonco . is tai p- the scope of the
or site whi is u d
perm ' cat regardleo�<whether such
buildi st re ndition is4lhown on the
'structure or
site I building,
ofa sep 250
con i aralk.,
enfo
1�4
�jv
771',A!, 1N/1FM/[0r>R ;;4
>
IVA, 51TT�_ A
x,�
4, bg
Lcyr COVERArvE= 2 Msf.
A t
\'x
? APPR
BY P IYMIYG
>
APPR 13Y P N1\N1
6g
C11
01
oe NN,
0
&
tv. �h
RESUB
MAR - 6,2008
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
STREET FILE CITY OF EDL40NDS
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STREET=FILE
Name:
Date:
Site Address: VAL
Plan Check #: QQCG - 1170
Project Description: Re?\-e,� -und ;t - (ev8 Ack.
Reduced Site Plan Provided: G)/ NO)
Zoning:
Map Page: 2S611157,
1 Corner Lot: (YES
Flag Lot: (YES /a
Critical Areas Determination #: Q0oG - 01q,k
Eros; A reb-, - 9
Study Required - Ulb-�-% cAs �Y, VAW.'N Geo-se."en
0,01C�1[14dec/ +te� Qle2kr. c*-.,\ JDe� S
El waiver �� 4 �:Flc* i�eA
SEPA Determination: Exe,,cnp�
Or Exempt
El Needed (for 500 cubic yards of grading or site within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
Required Setbacks
Street:(,)
Side:(,,)
Side: W 101
Rear: (N)
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Si de:
Side:
Rear:(,)
El Detached structures:
11 Rockeries: None, e�loa->rN or%
El Fences/Trellises:
11 Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation:
Stairs/Deck: cs
Heh7ht
Datum Point:
NA
Datum Elevation:
4�A
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height: 4
er
Parking Required:
Parking Provided:
Lot Area: ;tc,
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed:
Propc,� Der-V- i55cf-anwo,= 90 4V
Lot Coverage Calculations:
Ex,4. beck (4p 6'e_ceVbs� S1190 Tc.+ a, no 15 -, 7 .7,
ADU Created: (YES AD
Subdivision: —r,,_ _ G
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
Comments
Plan Review By:
Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc
rr I HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
U LM�IAA I
April 2, 2008
FBVA Project No. 2006-153-21
Arthur E. Huycke
c/o 18223 84h Place W
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: PIN PILE BEAMNG CAPACITIES - ADDENDUM APR 2 2 2C`,`oJJ
Huyeke Residence Deck Replacement SUILDIPC V,:iPA9
1822384 th Place W — Edmonds, WA - _N�Tr
Dear Mr. Huycke,
As requested in recent telephone discussions with our Mr. D. Coltrane, HWA
GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has prepared the following specifications for 2-inch, 3-inch and
4-inch (nominal) diameter pin piles per the City of Seattle, Department of Design
Construction and Land Use (DCLU) Director's Rule 12-2001.
Pile Size
Bearing Capacity
(tons)
Special Requirements
2-inch diameter
2 (Maximum)
Max Penetration Depth 30-feet
3-inch diameter
6 (Typical)
ASTM load test on 3% of piles
4-inch diameter
10 (Typical)
ASTM load test on 3% of piles
The preceding table should only used in conjunction with the HWA letter report for our
Project No. 2006-153-2 1, dated October 30, 2006, and all of the following criteria should
be followed.
Pin Pile Driving Criteria
Each pin pile should be driven to "refusal," which is defined as a minimum penetration
during a specified time period of driving (e.g., less than I inch of penetration during
10 seconds of driving). The driving criteria are determined based onthe impacthainmey
used, pile size, site soil conditions, and load testing. Based on our experience and
available design guidelines, each of the above tabulated pin piles, driven sufficiently into
the dense native soils, will be capable of developing the stated allowable axial
compressive load, with an acceptable factor of safety. Per the City of Seattle,
Department of Design Construction and Land Use (DCLU) Director's Rule 12-2001,
load -testing is required, for all pile sizes exceeding 2-inch nominal diameter, on a
minimum of 3% of the piles up to 5 piles maximum (I minimum) to verify 19730 - 64th Avenue W
axial capacity and to establish an acceptable driving criteria. We Suite 200
understand, however, that because of equipment access considerations, you Lynnwood, NVA 98U36.5957
are favoring use of the 2-inch pile size, which will not require load testing' Tel: 425.774.0106
lax: 421.77,1,2714
STREET FILE www.hwagco.coin
April 2, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21
for capacity verification. You should, therefore, have your structural engineer re-evaluate
the design of the foundation system based on use of the smaller reduced load capacity pill
pile element. Upon completion of this review, and establishment of the number of piles
required, we will be able to provide you with an indication of special inspection
requirements for the project.
Lateral Capacities
If lateral capacity is required of the piles, battered pin piles should be installed at an angle
of I H:5V (20 percent from vertical) adjacent to all vertical piles installed. For this
configuration, all lateral resistance must be taken in the battered piles and lateral
resistance offered by the buried portion of any grade beams or pile caps should be
ignored. Allowable lateral capacity of the piles battered to the foregoing specification
call be assumed to be 20% of the axial capacity given in the above table.
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We prepared this technical memorandum for Harold and Marguerite Huycke and their
designated agents for use in design and construction of this project. This letter should be
taken as all addendum to our previous report and provided to prospective contractors for
bidding and estimating purposes.
This report is issued with the understanding that it is the responsibility of the owner, or
the owner's representative, to ensure that the information and recommendations are
brought to the attention of the appropriate design team personnel and incorporated into
the project plans and specifications, and the necessary steps are taken to see that tile
contractor and subcontractors carry out such recommendations in the field.
0.0
2006153 addmidum leitcr 04-02-08 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
April 2, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21
We trust that this letter addresses your current needs, but if we may be of further
assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (425) 774-0106. We appreciate
this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
[EXPIRES --- 08/24/19153 -1
Lome Balanko, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer, President
2006153 addenclum letter 04-02-08 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
HWAut
Geotechnical & Pavement Engineering - Hydrogeology - Geoenvironniental - Inspection & Testing
.. Wu OSCIENCES INC.
January 7, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21 T200
Marguerite Huycke
18223 84b Place W
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: CIUTIcAL A"As RiEPORT
Huycke Residence Deck Replacement
1822384 1h Place W — Edmonds, WA
Dear Mrs. Huycke,
At your request, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) has undertaken and completed a Critical
Areas Assessment of geologic hazards on the subject site in relation to your proposed
deck replacement project. This report was prepared in order to satisfy the critical areas
requirements as outlined in the City of Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC), Chapters 23.40 and 23.80, for development within geologically hazardous
areas. The project vicinity is shown in Figure 1.
BACKGROUND
The proposed development consists of demolishing the existing two-story, uncovered
wood deck on the back (north) side of the house and construction of a new, two-story,
uncovered wood deck. The new deck will occupy essentially the same footprint as the
existing deck, with a small addition along the west side, as shown in Figure 2.
HWA undertook a geotechnical investigation in support of the deck replacement project,
in October 2006. The results of this investigation, along with our conclusions and
recommendations, were presented in a letter report entitled, Geotechnical Investigation,
Huycke Residence Deck Replacement, 18223 84h Place W —Edmonds, WA, dated
October 30, 2006,.
Our geotechnical investigation found that the soil north of your house consists of about
8 feet of loose, side -cast, fill that appears to be settling and moving down slope. This
ongoing down slope movement has resulted in loss of nearly all deck foundation support,
as the existing foundations, consisting of pier blocks resting on the ground surface, have
settled and moved down slope. Currently, the deck is extremely unstable, rotted, and is
not usable. Our original geotechnical report contains: a description of the site; subsurface
exploration information; general geologic conditions; subsurface conditions; and
recommendations for pin pile supported deck foundations. The original geotechnical
report should be referred to for this information and should be read in 19730 - 64th Avenue W.
conjunction with this Critical Areas Report. AV% M R Suite 200
H 1= *'.:o to ts
.. MAR - 3 2008
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
Lynnwood, WA 98036.5957
Tel: 425.774.0106
Fax: 425.774.2714
www.hwageosciences.com
January 7, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21 T200
Subsequent to submission of our report, the City of Edmonds has determined your
property to be an Erosion and Landslide Hazard Area, based on both a site visit and a
map made with the City's LIDAR data. Accordingly, the City is requiring the a Critical
Areas assessment or study of the proposed development in conformance with the ECDC.
CRITICAL AREAS ASSESSMENT
For this Critical Areas Assessment report, a geotechnical engineer and geologist from
HWA visited the site on November 29, 2007, and surveyed two profiles, through the
slope from the back (north) side of the house to the bottom of the slope, at each end of the
existing deck, depicted as Cross -Sections A -A' and B-B' in Figure 2. The profiles
through the slope are presented in Figures 3 and 4, along with subsurface information
obtained during the original geotechnical investigation. Logs of the hand hole
explorations are presented in Figures 4 through 7 of the original geotechnical
investigation.
We have conducted this assessment to classify the slope hazard and determine what
impact, if any, the proposed deck replacement project may have on the stability of
existing slope.
GEOLOGic HAzARDs
Landslide and Erosion Hazard Area
In accordance with the criteria contained in the ECDC Chapter 23.80, and our slope
measurements taken in the field, nearly the entire subject property classifies as a
Landslide and Erosion Hazard Area due to the inclination and height of the existing site
slopes and soil composition. As shown in Figure 2, the area encompassed in the red
outline represents the Landslide and Erosion Hazard Areas, based on City of Edmonds
LIDAR data. As shown, almost all of the subject property is classified as Landslide and
Erosion Hazard Areas, with the exception of the driveway portion of the lot (south end).
As such, the existing deck and the proposed deck are within the Landslide and Erosion
Hazard Area and no buffers are delineated.
Based on our measurements, the backyard slope height is approximately 30 feet from the
north side of the house to the toe of the slope at the drainage channel (north property
line). However, the existing fill and native soils consist of granular, well -drained, glacial
outwash soils that are typically not subject to global failure or deep-seated rotational
sliding. The present average slope inclination corresponds to the approximate natural
angle of repose for Recessional Outwash sand, at about 33 degrees, and therefore is
considered stable under static conditions. Several sections of short steeper zones (old
skin slide scarps) were evident. In consideration of existing slope and soils conditions, it
is our view that the most significant risk of slope instability at this site is the potential
occurrence of shallow skin slides in the near -surface slope soils resulting from erosion.
However, we expect that such erosion -induced sliding can be minimized through proper
2006-153 T200 Letter 2 HWA GEOSUENCES INC.
January 7, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21 T200
site drainage measures and will have little to no impact on the deck replacement project,
if the recommendations of our reports are followed.
Present deck development plans do not include any modification of the steep slope
portion of the existing site, and will not extend any closer into the geologically sensitive
area than the existing deck. The existing slope is heavily vegetated with deciduous and
coniferous trees, ferns and ivy. We anticipate that the deck replacement project will have
no impact to the existing slope vegetation.
Furthermore, the deck replacement project includes no soil cuts/excavations nor
placement of additional fill soils. In our opinion, the planned deck replacement project
will have no net impact on site slopes and will not increase the hazard level associated
with occurrences of potential shallow landslides. In fact, it is our view that the new deck
project will improve existing slope stability as foundation loads will be transferred to
deeper competent native soils below the existing fill. As recommended in our original
geotechnical investigation, 4-inch (minimum) diameter pin piles will be used to transfer
deck loads to competent native soils below the loose fill. Sufficient embedment of the
piles in the competent native deposits, coupled with proper connections with the deck
structure, should allow for some movement of soils to occur without destabilizing the
structure. Moreover, the installation of these piles along the top of the slope should serve
to increase the overall stability of the area between the north wall of the house and the top
of the steep slope.
The slope is part of a larger drainage feature abutting numerous lots in the area, as shown
in Figure 5. The subject property continues north to the toe of the slope, where the slope
then rises (as part of the neighboring property to the north). No development exists
between the subject property residence and the residence on the property to the north. In
our opinion, there is no increased risk to life or property as a result of the deck
replacement project.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
In our view, the proposed deck replacement project will not adversely affect the overall
stability of the adjacent steep slopes. Because the new deck will be founded on pin piles
driven to refusal in the dense native outwash soil, deck loads will be transferred below
and away from the existing slope face. We recommend that the replacement deck
foundations (piers) extend no further north, from the north wall of the house, than the
existing foundations.
No vegetation currently exists in the area between the north wall of the house and
the existing deck piers. We envision that all work can proceed from this area and that
no disturbance of existing slope vegetation will be required.
It is our opinion that construction of the replacement deck will not have a detrimental
effect on the slope or cause an increase in erosion as long as recommendations presented
herein are met during construction.
2006-153 T200 Letter 3 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
January 7, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21 T200
All applicable Best Management Practices (BUT's) as described in ECDC Chapter 18.30
must be followed to mitigate any surface disturbance involved with deck demolition and
replacement. These measures include a limited erosion control plan including, but not
limited to, a construction access route comprised of quarry spalls, placement of silt
fencing along the top of the steep slope and around the perimeter of the work area, and
stabilization of all exposed areas.
As noted in Figure 3, during our survey, a drain pipe was observed day -lighting
mid -slope along the Cross-section A -A'. No water seepage was observed from the pipe
during our investigation. We recommend that this pipe be evaluated to determine if it is
used to convey site runoff. If the pipe is still active, we recommend that it be extended to
the toe of the slope (at the drainage channel) in order to reduce slope erosion. A suitable
splash pad or energy dissipation device should be placed at the end of the outfall to
prevent creation of a scour hole or erosion channel that might eventually migrate upslope
and/or undermine the slope creating a skin slide.
CONDITIONS AND LIMITATIONS
We have prepared this letter report for Marguerite Huycke, and her designated agents, for
use in construction and permitting of the proposed deck replacement on the subject lot.
Experience has shown that soil and ground water conditions can vary significantly over
small distances. Inconsistent conditions can occur between explorations and may not be
detected by a geotechnical study of this scope and nature. We make no warranty of site
subsurface conditions at locations other than our explorations and to the depths explored.
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. HWA 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.
0.0
2006-153 T200 Letter 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
January 7, 2008
HWA Project No. 2006-153-21 T200
We trust that this letter addresses your current needs, but if we may be of further
assistance, please feel free to contact the undersigned at (425) 774-0106. We appreciate
this opportunity to be of service.
Sincerely,
HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
03/18/06
Bryan K. Hawkins, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Lome Balanko, P.E.
President/Principal Geotechnical Engineer
Attachments:
Figure 1. Vicinity Map
Figure 2. Site Plan
Figure 3. Cross -Section A -A'
Figure 4. Cross -Section B-B'
Figure 5. Site Contours (from City of Edmonds LIDAR data)
2006-153 nOO Letter 5 HWA GEoSCIENCES INC.
HH-3
H 4
ULTA fWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
B"
Legend'
HH 1 .1 � Haxidhole.biesignatioil &
Approximatoloc6tion
Landslide and Erosion Hazard
Areas Outlined in Red
Site Plan-.Pr6v.ididby0w'ner
SITE PLAN
CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
HUYCKE RESIDENCE DECK REPLACEMENT
1822384 TH PLW
FIGURE NO.
PROJECT NO.
2006-153
� 0
Edge of
/Existing House
Deck Post
_ _1
Tm
HH- I
Top.of Slo e
p .......................... .
Visible Slide Scarp
0
5—
FILL
...... .................... .
Drain Pipe
Offset 4.5' East . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
0
U
10
91-
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . I . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
ILL/COLLUVItTT\4
�0
...... NATIVE
........ ... ................. .
Toe. of Slope
1 -5—
..........
----
NAT117VE ?__-
30 10
110
120 130 140 150 160
Distance Along Cross Section (ft.)
HH- I Exploration Designati
Ground Surface
pproximate Contact
Scale V= 10' Bottom of Exploration
ULT', HWAGEOSCIENCES INC.
CROSS SECTION A -A'
LITICAL AREAS REPOIR
HUYCKE RESIDENCE
EDMONDS, WA.
153
4-4
V
4'�
KEY:
HH-1 Exploration Designation
Ground Surface
Approximate Contact ?
Scale I"=10' Bottom of Exploration
Distance Along Cross Section (ft.)
CROSS SECTION B-B'
I HUYCKE RESIDENCE 1PROJEC'
MM!"i -
U �, HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. 18223 84th PI W 2006-153
1 EDMONDS. WA.
11
CMA-2006-143
Subject Property
LIDAR data disp lays
approximate 2-foot
contours. Topography
should be, vedfied in the
field for accuracy.
I inch equals 40 feet
0 12.5 25 50 Feet
L—L I
Note: Figure from City of Edmonds LIDAR data
F6W,A, � HWAGEOSCIENCE.S INC.
CONTOUR MAP OF PROPERTY & VICINITY
I CRITICAL AREAS REPORT
HUYCKE RESIDENCE DECK REPLACEMENT
1822384 TI PLW
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
3
ROJECT NO.
2006-153