Loading...
19210 93RD PL W.PDF9065 19210 93RD PL W 44 651 SEP .- 7 2011 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR. CITY OF EDMONDS 93rd FI W. 5cale: _L11 = , STREET FILE Property Owner: Lee, Rei5wicj, I G CEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Relswig c/o Carlisle Classic Homes P.O. Box 31128 Seattle, WA 98103 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Beflevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 August 25, 2011 JN 11301 Attention; Alex Adolfi SEP 7 7 2011 DEVELOPMEN'T SERVICES CTR- Proposal: Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance C11Y OF EDMONDS Proposed Relswig Residence Underpinning 19210 — 93rd Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Adolfi via email: aadolfi(cDcarlisle. us On August 23, 2011, the undersigned associate visited the subject site at 19210 — 93d Place in Edmonds. The purpose of this visit was to meet with you and Mr. Reiswig, to observe the existing site conditions, and to develop opinions regarding the proposed house underpinning. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the visual observations made during our site visit, shallow hand augers, and on previous experience with other projects in the vicinity. No deep subsurface explorations were conducted for our work. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, dated August 18, 2011. No plans of the underpinning were provided for our review, but through discussion with you and Mr. Reiswig, we understand that you wish to underpin and lift the most drastically settled areas of the foundation and stabilize (but not lift) certain other areas of the foundation. Based on the preliminary level survey of the basement conducted by the contractor, we understand that the northeastern portion of the foundation has suffered the most differential settlement. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located on the western side of 93rd Place West. The eastern site grade is near the level of 9P Place West and the backyard to the west is approximately 6 to 8 feet lower. We understand from Mr. Reiswig that both the front and rear yards of the property were filled during construction of the house in the 60s. The existing, one-story house has a full basement on its eastern end and the basement daylights to the west. The basement has a slab on grade. During our visit to the site, we observed the perimeter of the foundation and discussed the settlement pattern of the residence with you and Mr. Reiswig. Based on the level survey of the basement floor completed by you, we understand that the northeastern foundations are on the order of 4 to 6 inches differentially lower than the south-central portion of the slab. This differential settlement decreases along the northern wall to the west. There are two sizeable cracks in the northern foundation demarking the areas of increased differential settlement. There is also cracking in the eastern wall near the southeastern corner of the northeastern bedroom. Slab cracking in the basement was also observed. There is a sizeable east -west crack that runs through the center of the northwestern recreation room; a large slab crack that runs north -south from the 0 "TREET FILE GEOTECH. CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Reiswig c/o Carlisle Classic Homes August 25, 2011 JN 1 1301 Page 2 west of the bathroom to just west of the eastern basement wall beneath the entry. There is also severe slab cracking and settlement in the northeastern bedroom. Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site is based on the observations made during our recent site visit. During our visit, we excavated two shallow hand auger test holes. Our first hand auger hole was located in the northeastern portion of the northeast bedroom (in the locations of the greatest differential settlement). This hand auger hole revealed approximately 18 inches of the loose sand fill overlying black organic topsoils to 3.5 feet. Beneath the topsoils, we encountered loose weathered slightly silty sands that became medium -dense at approximately 5 feet below grade, but became looser and wet at about 6.5 feet below grade. The test hole was terminated at 7 feet below grade. Our second hand auger hole was excavated in backyard of the residence near the northwestern corner of the house. This test hole revealed approximately 18 inches of loose, wet, topsoil and fill overlying dense silty sand (glacial till). The composition of the glacial till in the hole seemed to indicate that it was native soil, but according to Mr. Relswig's memory of the grading at the site, it would be likely for fill soils to be located in this area of the site. This test hole was terminated at 2 feet due to auger refusal. Detailed soil logs are on file at our office if needed in the future. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the hand auger borings, the surrounding topography, Mr. Reiswig's recollection of the past grading at the site, and the performance of the improvements at the subject site, we anticipate -that the site is underlain by a mantle of fill organic topsoils and losoe sands. Underlying the loose soils at depth, dense silty sands would be anticipated. The existing house appears to be supported on a shallow foundation. During our visit, we reviewed the interior and exterior of the residence for indications of past settlement and reviewed the results of your level survey. Foundation cracking was observed in the northern and eastern walls of the house. Based on discussions with you and our observations, it appears that the eastern majority of- the northern wall and the eastern wall south to the entry (particularly the northeastern corner) have exhibited the most severe differential settlement with respect to the remainder of the residence. This settlement appears to be due to compression of the loose and organic soils beneath the shallow foundations of the house. The differential settlement of the eastern portion of the house wall is likely due the changing in the subsurface conditions and the added loading of the fill soils placed to the east of the foundations in the front yard and eastern. portion of the north yard. We understand that you and Mr. Reiswig propose to lift the sections of the perimeter foundation that have suffered the most severe differential settlement; and that you plan to underpin other areas of the foundation with moderate differential settlement. After discussion at the site, Mr. Reiswig, you, and this engineer determined that the most severe differential settlement appears to have occurred in the eastern end of the north wall (east of the cracks) and along the eastern wall to the south wall of the bedroom. Moderate differential settlement was observed along the remainder of the north wall and the east wall south to the garage. Based on the soils observed in our test holes, the lifting proposed, and the limited access, it appears that driven, small -diameter pipe piles are appropriate for this use. Since this underpinning is elective, it is the owner's option to underpin whatever sections of the home he wishes. Note that the piling can only support areas that are actually underpinned. Non - underpinned areas of the foundation that are underlain by loose soils will likely continue to settle, and all future settlement would be differential to the underpinned portion of the house. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Reiswig c/o Carlisle Classic Homes JN 11301 August25,2011 Page 3 We understand that you propose lifting portions of the underpinned foundations to level the floors. Re -leveling. portions of the house in this manner is not without risk and it has been our experience that significant aesthetic damage (such as window breakage, plaster cracking, and window/door sticking) can occur during a lifting operation. With very big lifts. The roofing seals could also theoretically be affected. Often, these damages manifest for a significant time period following a lifting operation as the house adjusts to the new positioning. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. PIPE PILES A 2-inch-diameter pipe pile driven with a minimum 90-pound jackhammer to a final penetration rate of 1 inch or less for one minute of continuous driving may be assigned an allowable compressive load of 2 tons. Extra�strong (Schedule 80) galvanized steel pipe should be used. Due to the potential for organic soils, we recommend that the piles incorporate corrosion protection, such as galvanizing. Subsequent pipe sections should be connected together using threaded or slip couplers, or by welding. If slip couplers are used, they must fit snugly into the ends of the pipes. This can require that shims or beads of welding flux be applied to the couplers. Brackets, pile caps or grade beams should be used to transmit loads to the piles. A minimum of two piles should be used in isolated pile caps, in order to prevent eccentric loading on individual piles. It is difficult to accurately estimate the length that the piles will need to be driven to achieve the recommended refusal rate. However, we do recommend that the piles be driven to a minimum embedment of 8 feet below the existing grade. It Is likely that the piles will extend deeper than this minimum length. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants,. Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction, This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes In the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not Include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. LIMITATIONS GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Re/swig c/o Carlisle Classic Homes JN 11301 August 25, 2011 Page 4 The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions, as they existed at the time of our site visit. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those anticipated, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lee Reiswig, Carlisle Classic Homes, and their representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed and on previous experience with sites that have similar observed conditions. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance With current standards of practice within the limited scope of our services, No warranty is expressed or implied. We trust that this report. meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please contact us if we can be of further service. JHS: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. ST ON S 'F WAS A4- 3609A 1310 -James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Associate GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. #P20 CA F il e N o: 6 CO C, Critical Areas Checklist Site information (soils/ toPOgraPhY/hYdrology/ vegetation) 1. Site Address/ Location: I q 2. Property Tax Account Number: 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 131 D-00 S<;� F_� 4. Is this site currently developed? X yes; _ no if yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. — Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. tical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal —I--,< Rolling- slopes on site generally less than 15% (a ver distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: _A)0; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: NO ; Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway __AA_:2 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 on site: For City Staff Use 0itly_MAALft 2gq 1. Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. Site is Zoned? U, - X2. — - eb �n 3. SCS mapped soidl type(s)? ates Critical Area on site? 05; t m3wl M 3*.M 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indic 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? No SITE D N41NATION STUD�Y �RE UIRED ')��WAIVER 01 Date: Reviewed by- ig Revised on 9114110 .401 P20 - Critical Areas Checklist Page 2 of 2 CEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Reiswig c/o Carlisle Classic Homes P.O. Box 31128 Seattle, WA 98103 Attention: Alex Adolfl Proposal: Geotechnical Engineering Reconnaissance Proposed Reiswig Residence Underpinning 19210 — 93rd Place West Edmonds, Washington Dear Mr. Adolfi 13256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16 Bellevue, Washington 98005 (425) 747-5618 FAX (425) 747-8561 September 12, 2011 JN 11301 R'=P ,,q&-man R OEM SER-j412,81toll via email: aadolfi(d),carlisle,us On August 23, 2011, the undersigned associate visited the subject site at 19210 — 93rd Place in Edmonds. The purpose of this visit was to meet with you and Mr. Reiswig, to observe the existing site conditions, and to develop opinions regarding the proposed house underpinning. The recommendations and conclusions presented in this report are professional opinions based on the visual observations made during our site visit, shallow hand augers, and on previous experience with other projects in the vicinity. No deep subsurface explorations were conducted for our work. This work was authorized by your acceptance of our proposal, dated August 18, 2011. No plans of the underpinning were provided for our review, but through discussion with you and Mr. Reiswig, we understand that you wish to underpin and lift the most drastically settled areas of the foundation and stabilize (but not lift) certain other areas of the foundation. Based on the preliminary level survey of the basement conducted by the contractor, we understand that the northeastern portion of the foundation has suffered the most differential settlement. SITE CONDITIONS The subject property is located on the western side of 93rd Place West. The eastern site grade is near the level of 93td Place West and the backyard to the west is approximately 6 to 8 feet lower. We understand from Mr. Reiswig that both the front and rear yards of the property were filled during construction of the house in the 60s. The existing, one-story house has a full basement on its eastern end and the basement daylights to the west. The basement has a slab on grade. During our visit to the site, wei observed the perimeter of the foundation and discussed the settlement pattern of the residence with you and Mr. Relswig. Based on the level survey of the basement floor completed by you, we understand that the northeastern foundations are on the order of 4 to 6 inches differentially lower than the sOuth-central portion of the slab, This differential settlement decreases along the northern wall to the west. There are two sizeable cracks in the northern foundation demarking the areas of increased differential settlement. There is also cracking in the eastern wall near the southeastern corner of the northeastern bedroom. Slab cracking in the basement was also observed. There is a sizeable east -west crack that runs through the center of the northwestern recreation room; a large slab crack that runs north -south from the GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. STREET FILE Lee Re/swig do Carlisle Classic Homes JN 11301 September 12, 2011 Page 2 west of the bathroom to just west of the eastern basement wall beneath the entry. There is also severe slab cracking and settlement in the northeastern bedroom. Our understanding of the subsurface conditions at the site is based on the observations made during our recent site visit. During our visit, we excavated two shallow hand auger test holes. Our first hand auger hole was located in the northeastern portion of the northeast bedroom (in the locations of the greatest differential settlement). This hand auger hole revealed approximately 18 inches of the loose sand. fill overlying black organic topsoils to 3.5 feet. Beneath the topsoils, we encountered loose weathered slightly silty sands that became medium -dense at approximately 5 feet below grade, but became looser and wet at about 6.5 feet below grade. The test hole was terminated at. 7 feet below grade. Our second hand auger hole was excavated in backyard of the residence near the northwestern corner of the house. This test hole revealed approximately 18 inches of loose, wet, topsoil and fill overlying dense silty sand (glacial till). The composition of the glacial till in the hole seemed to indicate that it was native soil, but according to Mr. Reiswig's memory of the grading at the site, it would be likely for fill soils to be located in this area of the site. This test hole was terminated at 2 feet due to auger refusal. Detailed soil logs are on file at our office if needed in the future. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS Based on the hand auger borings, the surrounding topography, Mr. Reiswig's recollection of the past grading at the site, and the performance of the improvements at the subject site, we anticipate that the site is underlain by a mantle of fill organic topsoils and losoe sands. Underlying the loose soils at depth, dense silty sands would be anticipated. The existing house appears to be supported on a shallow foundation. During our visit, we reviewed the interior and exterior of the residence for indications of past settlement and reviewed the results of your level survey. Foundation cracking was observed in the northern and eastern walls of the house. Based on discussions with you and our observations, it appears that the eastern majority of the northern wall and the eastern wall south to the entry (particularly the northeastern corner) have exhibited the most severe differential settlement with respect to the remainder of the residence. This settlement appears to be -due to compression of the loose and organic soils beneath the- shallow foundations of the house. The differential settlement of the eastern portion of the house wall is likely due the changing in the subsurface conditions and the added loading of the fill soils placed to the east of the foundations in the front yard and eastern portion of the north yard. We understand that you and Mr. Reiswig propose to lift the sections of the perimeter foundation that have suffered the most. severe differential settlement; and that you plan to underpin other areas of the foundation with moderate differential settlement. After discussion at the site, Mr. Reiswig, you,. and this engineer determined that the most severe differential settlement appears to have occurred in the eastern end of the north wall (east of the cracks) and along the eastern wall to the south wall of the bedroom. Moderate differential settlement was observed along the remainder of the north wall and the east wall south to the garage. Based on the, soils observed in our test holes, the lifting proposed, and the limited access, it appears that driven, small -diameter pipe piles are appropriate for this use. Since this underpinning is elective, it is the owner's option to underpin whatever sections of the home he wishes. Note that the piling can only support areas that are actually underpinned. Non - underpinned areas of the foundation that are underlain by loose soils will likely continue to settle, and all future settlement would be differential to the underpinned portion of the house. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Reiswig clo Carlisle Classic Homes JN 11301 September 12, 2011 Page 3 We understand that you propose lifting portions of the underpinned foundations to level the floors. Re -leveling portions of the house in this manner is not without risk and it has been our experience that significant aesthetic damage (such as window breakage, plaster cracking, and window/door sticking) can occur during a lifting operation. With very big lifts. The roofing seals could also theoretically be affected. Often, these damages manifest for a significant time period following a lifting operation as the house adjusts to the new positioning. We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and recommendations. PIPE PILES A 2-inch-diameter pipe pile driven with a'minimum 90-pound jackhammer to a final penetration rate of 1 Inch or less for one minute of continuous driving may be assigned an allowable compressive load of 3 tons. Extra -strong (Schedule 80) galvanized steel pipe should be used. Due to the potential for organic soils, we recommend that the piles incorporate corrosion protection, such as galvanizing. Subsequent pipe sections should be connected together using threaded or slip couplers, or by welding. If slip couplers are used, they must fit snugly into the ends of the pipes. This can require that shims or beads of welding flux be applied to the couplers. Brackets, pile caps or grade beams should be used to transmit loads to the piles. A minimum of two piles should be used in isolated pile caps, in order to prevent eccentric loading on individual piles. It is difficult to accurately estimate the length that the piles will need to be driven to achieve the recommended refusal rate. However, we do recommend that the piles be driven to a minimum embedment of 8 feet below the existing grade. It is likely that the piles will extend deeper than this minimum length. ADDITIONAL SERVICES Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services. when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe.. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Lee Relswig c/o Carlisle Classic Homes September 12, 2011 LIMITATIONS JN 11301 Page 4 The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions, as they existed at the time of our site visit. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those anticipated, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated soil conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Lee Reiswig, Carlisle Classic Homes, and their representatives, for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed and on previous experience with sites that have similar observed conditions. The conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the limited scope of our services. No warranty is expressed or implied. We trust that this report. meets your immediate needs for the proposed development. Please contact us if we can be of further service. JHS: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. CpS-VON S, Cl/I Z-/ WA 6094 IST '�10 INV James H. Strange, Jr., P.E. Associate GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. #P20 CA File No:—!��'>-O�k 6 CIR L, Critical Areas Checklist Site information (soils/ topography/hydrology/ vegetation) 1 . Site Address/ Location: 111 2. Property Tax Account Number: -,DO -3 _2 1142 O'D `5 �b -3 0 3. Approximate site size (acres or square feet): Q1 DO-0 S<:;� F-� 4. Is this site currently developed? X yes; — no. if yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. —I--,< Rolling- slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of . 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). rise of 10-feet Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). — other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: —A)O; Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: PI) Approx. Depth: What season(s) of the year? 8. Site is in the floodway ---A-4—:D floodplain A'---O 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 n-dxed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) X 11. obvious wetland is present on site: " ..:) For City Staff Use Only Plan Check Number, if applicable? 2_ Site is Zoned? VLS- 12. L— % rz- &I- 4X"' 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? to 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? cv% C 9=3d rd area? NO 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide haza SITE DETERNIINATION WAIVER Reviewed Revised on 9114110 P20 - Critical Areav Checklisl Page 2 of 2 #P20 CA File Critical Areas Checklist Site Information (soils/ topography/hydrology/ vegetation) 1 . Site Address/ Location: J I j0d,�AA� IA/A 2. Property Tax Account Number: 15 �b 3 0 C5 3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 1-3 i�_00 4. Is this site currently developed? X yes; _ no. if yes; how is site developed? 5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. tical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal Rolling- slopes on site generally less than 15% (a ver distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet). Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of less than 33-feet). Other (please describe): 6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: A) 0 Approx. Depth: 7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: �O ; 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? ^;Io. Flows are seasonal? _ (What time of year? 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs ..... mixed urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc) X 11. obvious wetland is present on site: N:�) For City Staff Use Only 1. plan Check Number, if applicable? 2. Site is Zoned? 9�.S_ 113 111 1, J& Axae 3. SCS mapped soil type(s)? Co- --- Q.'CLVM* 4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? ek; 0- ry%2b�! -"Ch -r C=3d 5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? No SITE D — AnON WAIVER STUDY R�EUIRED Date:-9/ Al Reviewed by-_,jg Revised on 9114110 - P20 - Critical Areav Checklist Page 2 of 2 PUBLIC VJORKS DEPARTMENT CHECKLIST BUILDING PERI-11IT REVIEW .QTR;:r-T 1:11 P - . . V- I- . 11 0 =300 Street Ri��Jof-lqay Z . I Access Easements Existing H -REQD p4 Utility Easement Existing REQD Lot Per Subdivision Plat Assessor Mzp Site Plan Checked for-Ac6ura Z H V Underground Wix q Re d C Check I of L:gal Description Z Reyj&,O� by Date Existing Water Main Size Water Main Required comsf(�l U Service Line Required lof pr" aw Hydrant Size Existing op�ro,',nd on cr."11" RIO, ,ton Hydrant Reqd Per Fire Co de Size Detector Check Meter Reqd.. Cross Connection Inspection 10 f Fire Department ConiTmts Water �tter P�arge Reqd Review by,X-el Septic Tank Design Approved Date Septic Tank Permit Reqd. Permi,,t,,No Sanitary Sewer Availability oj. Drawing No. File Nlo�" Side Sewer Availabili Sanitary Sewer Connection Fee Reqd. tii: Review by Date Open Ditch Existm*g____._. Reqd. X Culvert Reqd. Size C4 Catch Basin Reqd. Indicate on Site Plan 0 Shoulder drainage niaintain collection an swale open runof f 1,bnhole reqd.:' Indicate on Site Plan Soil Cond�:�ions and Ground Water Field Checked Review/�y Date Revised:,-'lvlO-1977 CITY OF EDMONDS L, _�111 "I CaJI PRospect 6-1107 when work CIVIC CENTER — WATER -SEWER DEPARTMENT Is ready for inspection. (No Inspee, lions Saturday, Sunday or holidays.) N2 3 0 55) SIDE SEWER 'PERMIT ADDRESS ................. �9.2_1.0 ..... ... 9.3rd .... PlAce .... We.s.t .......................................................................................................................... .. .. ....... .... .. .... .... .. .. OWNER ...................... Lp,�g ... Relwlkg .................................. : ........ CONTRACTOR ............... j�qj�t_e.rn .... Se.w.er .............................. July 9 68 Permission Is granted .......................... **"** .............. 19..: ...... for ........................ days to REPAIR or CONNECT a side Sewer -with City Sewers in accordance with application on 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. K licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct side sewer in street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before It has been inspected. NOTE No. 2—Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit. NOTE No. 3—Top of side serwer 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 Y8 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 whJch may develop within one year of completion. NOTE; No. 6—It Is unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or its appur- tenances except to Insert*the pipe Into the wye. APPLICATION for The City of Edmonds STpIE-ET FILE SIDE SEWER PERMIT NEW CONSTRUCTION jj�-� REPAIRS 0 - t OWNER .............. .... ............ .......... / /. .4 - 1114/ ADDRESS.......................................................................................................... APPROVED JUL 9 1QJ68 '9� EASEMENT No . .......................................... A- 14 D/ j,:�- ) CONTRACTOR ... ....... &' f� 4, .................. .............................. PERMIT NO'. LEGAL DESCRIPTION:. LOT No. ................................. BLOCK No. — .................... .................... NAME OF ADDITION, .... ........ t ... ................................................................. Approved: DATE .......... B�v The tity of Edmonds APPLICATION for SIDE SEWER PERMIT NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS (W EASEMENT No . ...... ........... ............ OWNER ..... .......... ........ ............. ............. ........ — -------------------- CONTRACTOR' . .......... .......... ............. . .... . ........ ........... ........................ PERMIT No. ............. ADDRESS ........... -/ ........... �� /4�) ....... .......................................... ...... . LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . ......... ), .......... .......... ... BLOCK No . .......................................... NAME OF ADDITION -.,Z� � ........................... "'1- /7-4 Approved: DATE................................................ By ........................ ........................ .................... 0 NOTICE, a— -c r.r a nty ... o c N The -information shown on the attached for use by the City Of map(s) was cOmPiled nd Consultants. Edmonds, its Empl.oyees a Th,.,e City of "Edm.onds does ' not warrant the accuracy of anything set for.th on t, * hese r entity -requesting a m2p(S"). Any person o I copy should conduct an.independent i orm . ation shown-o inquiry regard*ng the tl;i-�� -rn a p (s) . including, but not limited to, th . e location of any sewer stub shown. Suc sewer stubs may or may, not exist and may 't at the location shown. or may not exis Neitheir the City of Edmbn1c.114's nor its empl-o-yee-s o-r off i-ce-rs -sh-a-1-1 be l.`1a.b-11..e for thE this map(5), nor for infor . mation g ven on 'ded based any one representation provi upon . said map(s).