19511 94TH PL W.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
15528
19511 94TH PL W
ADDRESS:
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: D 0 0 r-2 co
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
- 19,11,1111111 101011 ME
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: F1 Conditional Waiver Ej Study Required 0 Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: 00
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER): (90OD-0
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: 4 /1-7/0 0
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $: LID
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: —
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER: 4w- a-)-o93 I
LATEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
xl -4
S
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
CITY OF EDMONDS
90
PERMIT N _0 9193
Add . ress of Con . struction: (,AJ
Z-f -_.>
Property Legal Description (Include all easements): �T 000 CDS_?� Cl�,
8F
.CF
ORKS DEP1
Owner and/or Contractor:Lav\l v -e v-((- 0 u 0) 1-,
State License No. LA AID-5 a 4 OQ'3T,J Building
- _21"'Single Family
0 Multi -Family (No. of Units—)
0 Commercial
El Public
M
mit No.
TREATMEN-T PLANT
M
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: El"No 11 Yl
RW Construction Permit No.
Cross other Private Property: 2rNo 11 Yes
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
f-'(n—rtify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
6-ldqloo
Date
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
I
OFFICE Ust,'ONLY
FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-32ft, PU WORKS DEPT.
Permit Fee: — Amplyt Iss
Trunk Charge:. Date Issued: 0
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: �0 0
Lid No.:
Partial Inspectioh: Date —Initial —
Comments
Reason Rejected: /cm n.-Ci-S Date —Initial —
Final Inspection Approved: Date/-2_/y_06 InitiaAk
** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE **
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3190
0 r
The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO . .................. ......... .. ......
NEW CONSTRUCTION JK REPAIRS F1 LID NO . ................ - ASMT. NO . . ..............
OWNER....................................................................................... .... CONTRACTOR .................................................................................... PERMI'I' NO.
JOB ADDRESS ....... [951 V.. 9.4 ...... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . ...... - ........................ ..... BLOCK NO . ...................
Ln
00
Ir
6-%
PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78)
Z.
........................................................................... ............................ -- ......................................................
NAMEOF ADDITION .............................................................................................. ..... I ------------------
S
4
60
f
0
-0
N
New
VqlA
Approved: jD-/rj-*c? -3(- S-4"
CIO C4P~S
DATE............................................ By ............................................................
NOTICE:
-N.'o ... w-a r'.r a n -L u t
formation shown on the attached
The in
for use by the City Of
map(s) was com . piled
Edmonds- its Employees and Consultants.
Th,.e City of Edm.onds does ' not warrant the
accuracy of anything set for,th on t ' hese
M a P ('s'). A n . y person or e-ntity -requesting a
copy should conduct an independent
(Drm . ation shown-o
inquiry regarding the inf'
Fi-�� a p (s), including, but not i1mited to,
c ion of any sewer stub shown, Suc
the lo' at*
sewer stubs may or may- not e.xist and may
-t at the location shown
or may not exis
Neitheir the "ity of Ec.1mondA !31 nor its
emp.,.0-yee-s o-r officers -sh-a-11-1 be l..'la-b-IFe for t1hE
n on this map(5), nor for
information g'Ve'
any one representation provided based
upon"said map(s).
4"41*_4
0.
CITY OF EDMONDS
18 9 0
Address of Construction:
Property Legal Description (Include all easements):
SIDE SEWER 'PERMIT
) L&I Cd rv) 0 n
PERMIT 1\12 9185
Gc� It,
Owner and/or Contractor: vi(OL. J Moq c
3
State License No. 03 3jv.. Building Permit No.
J,i L2 41 / / -1
1_0 /C31 0�_'
,,,A/Single Family
0 Multi -Family (No. of Units
Commercial
Public
Invasion into City Right-of-Way:m< EDMONDS
AWNEPq pLM7,.
RW Construction Permit No.
Cross other Private Property: E�No 11 Yes
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
I -certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements Date
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555),BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION
OFFICE:::USE .'ONLY
FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-32e ",11.113 =1R.KS DEPT.
lk� -0 3 5—
Permit Fee: Issued By
Trunk Charge: Date Issued: 00
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.:
Lid No.:
Partial Inspection: AfKkv! S C Date -Initial -
Comments
Reason Rejected: Date -Initial -
Final Inspection Approved: Date Initial 3,L
M7,
PE/RMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE
White,Copy: File Greeri Copy; �nspector Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3,190
The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing E-ASEMENT NO . ............................................
NEW CONSTRUCTION lkEPAllkS rl LID NO . .................. ASIAT. NO . ...... ...........
OWNER................................ ......................... ..................................... CONTRACTOR .................................................................................... PERMIT NO.
JOB ADDRESS ....... (04C,.Q,151.0�. . ...... LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . .......... ...................... .... BLOCK NO . ...................
it
................................................. .......... ............ ........................................................................ ......
NAMEOF ADDITION ........................................................ .........................................................
Q 0
6-%
PWW-0001-1 1175 (REV.1 1178)
-n
ip", A
Z�k�
, C�0�
�6
0
New
VVIA
Approved: P'l-t-vat 0./V-,Ov -3(-
",Ce,05 C1jV C4P~S
DATE............................................ By ............................................................
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil En
,gineer
December 17, 1999
FILE'
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
19511 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Duane, Landsverk, President
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendation
Proposed Two New Single Family Residences
Lots No. I and 2, 19518 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of two
building lots (Lots No. 1 and 2) at 19518 - 94th Place West, Edmonds,, Washington.
This evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of
Edmonds requirements.
REFERENCES:
-.Location map
• Site plan and topographic map by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Site photographs
Lots No. 1 and 2 have never been developed, and are covered by mature trees
and dense underbrush. Lot No. 1 consists of approximately three acres, and, Lot No. 2
consists.of approximately one acre (see site plan). Both lots exist adjacent and noirth
of S. R. 524 (1 96th Street). The southern portions of both lots contain relatively. steep
slopes adjacent S.R. 524. The slopes reside at approximately 3H:2V.
visual examination of the properties revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: No settlements, no shifting, no soil creep, nor any significant erosional
degradation were observed.
Adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity have been developed with single
family residences. It is understood that Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc., intends to
19 construct a single family residence on Lot No. 1, as well as an additional single family
residence on Lot No. 2. It is further understood that City of Edmonds building code
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
0
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Pagetwo,
requires improvement. to the existing Excelsior Place roadway in order to service these
two new single family residences. These lots may also be accessed by the existing
street network to the east.
EVALUATION:
in order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, nine (9) soil test
pits were dug under this engineer's observation on December 3, 1999 using a rubber -
tired backhoe (see photographs and site plan for test pit locations). All nine test pits
revealed similar subgrade conditions, and were consistent with this engineer's
experience in the area. The following test pit log is reflective of the subgrade
conditions of all nine test pits:
0" to 61' Organics, roots, and slight top soil (forest duff)
6" to approx. 7.5' Medium to coarse sands with occasional
(bottom of pit), cobbles. Dense to very dense at
five foot depths. Subgrade sands
contain less than six percent material
0
No water was encountered in any of the nine test pits. All test pit walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
K"n"xi'm Lei U;TAWAVIOu M g I q-.,% I Fel"i,
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, both lots (No. 1 and No. 2 at 19518 - 94th Place West) are geotechnically
approved for the proposed Landsverk Quality Homes two new single family
residences, subject to. the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
Set back distance from top -of -slope: This engineer walked the top -of -slope
alignment and placed. staking. This top -of -slope line is indicated on Western
Surveyors topographic map. The proposed two new residences may be
constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, up to fifteen feet
set back from the top -of -slope alignment. Note: If desired, residence m . ay be
constructed within this fifteen foot setback, however, specific and more costly
foundation methods would be required.
F- -I
L -.A
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page three
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended -for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor.of 0.55 and passive preSSUre of
350 p.c.f.
Geotechnicial inspection by this engineer 12rior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continUOUs and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub-sectionentitled Genergl Earthwork and Stg&tgral Fill
for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and
individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches
below the lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the.final site grades, some overexcavation may be required
below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill
the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least
as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width.
For example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot
wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings.constructed according to the above recommendations may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per
square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used
when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-fialf
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the
foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill
placed around the outside of the.foundation must be level structural fill. We
recomm ' end the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to
lateral loading:
0
0
E
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page four
Parameter Desian Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid densi ty.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undi s*turbed, competent native soils
or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these
soils can be recompacted. prior to placement of the f ree-draining sand or gravel
underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4)
inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-m ' il. plastic
membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WAILLS-
.L
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height
which restrain level backfill:
Active Earth Pressure'
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
I PIM re III MM r M-
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
0.55
125 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds pet cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
0.
0
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page five
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.,f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
Th ' e values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing
the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and
sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above
the walls. If these conditions. exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will
need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backf ill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should
contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater
than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve
should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt
content, if the native soils.are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi
and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage
composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. the
purpose of these backf ill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the
retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind
retaining and foundation walls.
11
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page six
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils maybe vertical. For temporary cuts -having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 11
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts
may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be
inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 1:1 (H:V). It is
important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors
should be made aware of this potential hazard.
Water should 'not be allowed, to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded. with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the
surficial layer of soil.
12RAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retai . ning walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one-in'ch-minus
washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or
similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as
low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and
surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
.No ground water was observed in any of the nine test pits during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs
during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use
of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page seven
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and, pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped
or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural
fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after
excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of
fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and
compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case
should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table
presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
U0 1=0 mal
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
1170-0 R1 U-4 F1 i
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the . compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
As stated, the subgrade soils consist of relatively clean sands with occasional
gravels. These on -site soils provide for excellent fill material, if required.
0
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
49 Page eight
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
.The use of "most" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture.contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLfz:
No drainage problems were evident on either Lot No. 1 or Lot No. 2. Given the
extremely porous nature of the subgrade soils, surface water runoff is a rare
occ urrence. Most storm water percolates into the sandy soils. Whatever storm water
runoff would exist would flow down slope (southerly) into the existing City of Edmonds
/.S.R. 524 roadside drainage system.
This engineer conducted four (4) percolation tests (Test Pits No. 2, 4, 8 and 9).
This engineer followed the recommended procedure in King County drainage manual,
with saturated test conditions. Percolation rates varied from eighteen inches (18") per
hour (minimum in one test pit) to "almost instantaneous". Thus, the high permeability
of the subgrade sands was verified.
This engineer recommends using a maximum infiltration rate of, thirteen inches
(13") per hour for the storm water infiltration system.
NOTE: This engineer strongly recommends the use of the on -site infiltration
system for storm water management. It is understood that a storm water tightline
system exists down slope, adjacent S.R. No. 524. In order to "tie-in" with this storm
water system, a steep trench would be required along the slope face above S.R.'524.
This steep face trenching would create geotechnical instabilities. Thus, it is not
recommended to uti.lize a tightline drainage system down slope.
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls,
etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of
concrete mix.
0
0 � 9
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page nine
kgaul a
This engineer observed the existing road configuration at 94th Place West,
intersecting S.R. 524 (196th Street). (Note: The street signs immediately south of this
intersection indicate 12th Avenue North and Puget Drive --see photographs.)
Currently, traffic signage requires a right turn only (west turn), leaving Lots 1 and 2,
and merging into S.R. 524. This "right turn only"exits along an extrqme b
_qjUa _1n
turn. This engineer observed and subsequently verified that standard passenger cars
(and any vehicle larger) cannot negotiate this right turn only without drifting across
highway center line. This condition. is dangerous- and should be remedied.
Additionally, the sight distance up slope (to the east) along S.R.524, is
minimal This minimal site distance is caused bya slide debris material pile within
the highway rig ht-of -way. This dangerous condition should be rectified. Thisengineer
recommends City of Edmonds officials and State of Washington Department of
Highway officials acknowledge this dangerous condition, and plan a mitigation. The
current excess material should be removed with a proper retaining wall installed
several feet back from the current line of site.
0 INSPECTIONs
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction,.
• Soil cuts
• Foundation subgrade verification
• Any retaining wall or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
The proposed two new Landsverk single family residences (Lot No. 1 and Lot
No. 2), are geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
UIATJ I 1 0 ifiJUM
This engineer approves the current site plan locations for the proposed
residences. It is recommended. that final review'occur once specific house plans and
siting are completed.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page ten
Thefindings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based oil the . results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
DMB:vIb
40
Of
trio
4 0 *P17
.C'
ONAL
I EXPI �ES I nJ/
bennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
0
02/22/;T()e �,10:35 4257789086 MICHEL CONST PAGE 02
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geolechnical/ Civil Engineer
February 18, 2000
City of Edm6nds
c/6 Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
19511 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Aftn: Mr. Duane. Landsverk, President
Subject: Follow Up Geotechnical Criteria
Proposed Two Now Single Family Residences
Lots No, 1 and 2, 19618 - 94th Place West
Sdrnonds, Washington
e- wr
FILE
Additional geotechnlcal evaluation has resulted in the revised information
submitted In this letter regarding Landsverk's building lots (Lots No. I and 2) at
19518 - 94th Place West, Edmonds, Washington.
• December 17, 1999 geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendations
by D. Bruce, P.E.
• January 14, 2000 additional geotechnical criteria report
• Site plan and topographic map by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Site photographs
Additional on -site geotechnical explorations have reverified the presence of.
dense, native subgrade soils. Further, on -site staking of the geotechnical top -of -slope
has contributed to this revised, updated criteria.
It is understood that many municipalities, including the City of Edmonds, have
an ordinance -dictated numerical value of "40% or greater" as a trigger for critical
slopes. As discussed many times by this engineer, there are many slopes where 40%
may not be safe enough, and there are many, many areas where 40% is not a
geotechnically significant factor. Site -specific investigation is necessary to determine
what is a safe and allowable building slope.
In the case of Lots I and 2, a 40% slope is not gootechnically hazardous, nor
50ILS # FOUNDA TIONS # SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN 8 PERMIT - LEGAL
P.Q. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
02/22/. Oe 10; 35 4257789086 MICHEL CONST PAGE 03
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page two
critical, The geotechnical investigations have verified the presence of dense, native,
relatively clean sand subgrade.
Thus, it is geotechnically acceptable to build a foundation (properly designed
and inspected by qualified engineers) beyond the so-called 40% top of slope
delineation.
Based on this engineer's on -site geotechnical Investigations, review of
topographic maps, discussions with Western Surveyors and owner, and a
reevaluation of the proposed residence footprint, the following are concluded:
The foundation line set back distance from the delineated top-ot-slope line is
Ug2technicalIX accepIllbIg al 12[l fool 00,1,
Actual site conditions allow for the residenc6 foundation to be constructed
beyond the 40% delineation line, subject to specialized foundation designs and
inspections.
It there are any questions, do nothesitate to call
Dennis M. Bruce, RE.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
OMB:vlb
161,AJ
LANDSVERK QUAUTY HOMES, INC.
19511 941h Place West, Edmonds, WA 98020
Office 425-742-2742
RECEIVED
MAY
May 8, 2000
City of Edmonds ENGINEEMAiG
Attn: Lyle Chrisman
121 5h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Lyle,
Regarding our conversation today pertaining to the placement of the infiltration trenches in the easement
area. I have attached a copy of the legal description of the easement along with a tax parcel nurnber
showing that the property upon which the easement lies is the property of the Lois Vineyard estate. The
estates' personal representative is Sylvia Nance, who is co-operating with us to see that any and all
requirements regarding the utilization of the easement are fiilfilled. It is her understanding as well as ours
that the easement is written in such a way that allows for the placement of drainage requirements within the
easement.
This should adequately address the citys' concerns relating to the utilization of the easement for any and all
necessary utilities.
Sincerel
Duane Landsver
enclosures
I
MetroScan , Full Leaal 49 APN.;�4#3144'6, 000, 0:5-8- IV'
41
-MG1T1MS.-&QA VIEW TRACTS BLK 058 D-06 PRIV RD DAF - COM AT SW COR SD
w'NOO'*19 22E ALG W LN SD TR 58 254.23FT TO NW COR SD TR .58 TH
dn' 5 6 52E ALG N LN SD TR58 DIST 165.12-FT TPB TH CONT N83*56 57E ALG,,
SD,.N,LN 251.31FT TH S 06*03 03E 1OFT TH S 83*56 57W 193FT TH SWLY AL(�
ARC OF A CRV WHOSE RAD PT BEARS S06*03 03E,65 FT DIST 94.87FT TH
SOO*19 27W 67.64FT TH SELY ALG ARC OF A CRV WHOSE RAD PT BEARS S89*40
33E 84.94FT DIST,.-,88.51FT TH S59*22 45E 173.96FT TO NLY R/W LN SR 524
TH WLY ALG ARC OF A CRV WHOSE RAD PT BEARS� N01*44 20E 360.28FT DIST
4.21FT TH S02*24 30W 20 FT TH WLY ALG ARC OF A CRV WHOSE RAD PT BEARS
NO2*24 30E 380.28FT DIST10.80FT TH N85*57 53W 12.06FT TH N59*22 45W
159.35FT TH NWLY ALG ARC OF A C,RV WHOSE RAD PT BEARS N30*37 15E
114.94FT DIST 119.77FT TH NOO*19 27E 67.64FT TH NELY ALG ARC OF A CRV
WHOSE RAD PT BEARS S89*40 33E 95 FT DIST 75.88FT TPB
The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed.
=ME
TROSAk PROPERTY PRO'OI'LE=
Snohomish (WA)
OWWNER I NFORMATION
Parcel Number
.()Oo 05 8 0 6 00
:,1 '000 058 06 00 RTSQ:03E -27N -13 -SE
Bldg Id Numbe
Record Type
t
-Platted Development Type:
OWner/Taxpayer
ois 1-4
CoOwner
Site Address
:*No Site Address*
Mail Address
:19518 94Th Pl W Edmonds Wa 98020
Phone
:Owner:425-778-2578 Tenant:
SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION
Recording Date
Loan Amount
Auditors Fee
Lender
Sale Price
Loan Type
Deed Type
Interest Rate
Owned
Vesting Type
ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION
k
Land
:$1,000 Levy Code :00213
Structure
1999 Taxes :$13.58
Total
:$1,000 Senior Tax
Improved
School Dist :015
Excise Number
Exemption :T
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Easement
Census
:Tract: Block:
Neighborhood Code :528 MapGrid:454 H4
Zoning
:Rs-12000
Zoning Rest
Actual Use
Building Name
Land Use
:91000 Vacant,Undeveloped,Unused Land
Subdivision/Plat
:Edmonds Sea View Tracts
Legal
:BLK 058 D-06 PRIV RD DAF - COM AT
:SW COR SD TR 58 TH NOO*19 22E ALG W
:LN SD TR 58 254.23FT TO NW COR S ...
Vol:3
Page :75
Profile -Page 1 of 3
The Information Provided Is Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed.
CITY CLERK
EXHIBIT "B"Lrt) civic cErrrEn
Mo'%40S- WA 98
AUTI]ORIZED
FOR
izr-CORDING Mdd, Middletlon & Associates, Inc.
log
Err,:r.�?,e.s -o 5tjrv,--i:)rs Planners
13Y
Of
Vinyard Short Subdivision Legal Descriptions (Cont.)
July 11, 1984' , CITY OF EDMONDS
File No. 02-81-039-003 P. W. DEFT . � E.NGINEERING DI . V.
Page 4 E.XAMINEQ
I JDY, &-L
LOT 3 REMARKS 016- 4 �Q_ n
That portion of Tract 58, Edmonds Seaview Tracts, according to�the plat thereof
recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, records of Snohomish Co.6nty,
Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said
Tract 58;
thence NO' 19'27"E along the west line of said Tract 58 a distance of 167.92
feet;
thence S86141'50"E 165.61 feet to the point of beginning;
thence 1`10*19'27"E 25.19 feet;
thence northeasterly along the arc of a curve, whose radius point bears
S8914013311E 65.00 feet', a distance of 94.87 feet;
thence N83*56'57"E 193.00 feet;
thence S6103'03"E 1.30.00 feet;
thence S81'52'33"W 256.81 feet;
thence NO'19127"E 55.19 feet;
thence N86141150"W 10.01 feet to the point of beginning.
TOGETHER WITH and SUBJECT TO a 40-foot easement for ingress, egress and
utilities as reccrded under Auditor's File No. 1423034, records of Snohomish
County, Washington.
TOGETHER WITH an easement for ingress, egress and utilities over, under and
through that portion of Tract 58, Edmonds Seaview Tracts, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Volume 3 of Plats, page 76, and that portion of -Tracts 17
Fnd 25, Puget Sound t-lachinery Depot -Five-Acre Tracts, according to the plat
thereof recorded in Volume 5 of Plats, page 47, records of Snohomish County,
Washington, described as follows: Commencing at the southwest corner of said
Tract 58;
thence NO* 19127"E along the west line of said Tract 58 a distance of 254.23
feet to the northwest corner of said Tract 58;
thence N83,56157"E along the north line of said Tract 58 a distance of 165.12
feet to the point of beginning;
thence continuing N83'56157"E along said north line 251.31 feet;
thence S6'03'03"E 10.00 feet;
thence S83*56'57"W 193.00 feet;
thence southwe§terly along the arc of.a.curve, whose radius point bears
S6*03'03"E 65.00 feet, a distance of 94.87 feet;
thence 50*19'27"W 67.64 feet;
thence southeasterly along the arc of a curve, whose radius point bears
S89*40'33"E 84.94 feet, a distance of 86.51 fe2t;
thence S59*22145"E 173.96 feet to the northerly right-of-way line of SR 524;
thence westerly along the arc of a curve, whose radius point bears NI*44'20"E
360.28 feet, a distance of 4.21 feet;
thence S2124'30"W 20.00 feet;
thence westerly along the arc of a curve, wtiose radius point bears N2'24,30"E
380-28 feet; a distance of 10.80 feet;
thence N35*5715311W 12.06 feet;
thence N59,22"45"W 159.35 feet;
thence northwesterly along the arc of a curve; whose radius point bears
1130*37115"E 114.94 feet, a distance or 119.77 feet;
thence 110*19'27"E 67.64 feet;
thence northeasterly along the arc of a curve, whose radius point bears
589*40'33"E 95.00 feet, a distance of 75.88 feet to the point of beginning.
8408 29 0 2'2 2
121 5th Avenue North, Sul!e 200, Edmonds, Woshington 98020 (206) 775-3,134
VOL -.t8pjo ?AGE N44
02/22/9000 '�'%10:35 4257789086 MICHEL CONST PAGE 02
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
m.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geolechnical/ Civil Engineer
February 18, 2000 CITY COPY
City of Edmonds
c/o Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
19511 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Duane, Landsverk, President
Subject: Follow Up GeotechnIcal Criteria
Proposed Two Now Single Family Residences
Lots No. 1 and 2, 19518 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
. Additional geotechnical evaluation has resulted in the revised information
submitted In this letter regarding Landsverk's building lots (Lots No. 1 and 2) at
19518 - 94th Place West, Edmonds, Washington.
• December 17, 1999 geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendations
by D. Bruce, P.E.
• January 14, 2000 additional geotechnical criteria report
• Site plan and topographic map by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Site photographs
Additional on -site geotechnical explorations have reverified the presence of..
dense, native subgrade soils. Further, on -site staking of the geotechnical top -of -slope
has contributed to this revised, updated criteria.
It is understood that many municipalities, including the City of Edmonds, have
an ordinance -dictated numerical value of "40% or greater" as a trigger for critical
slopes. As discussed many times by this engineer, there are many slopes where 40%
may not be safe enough, and there are many, many areas where 40% is not a
geotechnically significant factor. Site -specific investigation is necessary to determine
what is a safe and allowable building slope.
In the case of Lots I and 2, a 40%, slope is not geotechnically hazardous, nor
50ILS * FOUNDATIONS , SITE DEVELOPMENT & INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESION S PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-6442
02/22/.'eeO ".10:35 4257789086 MICHEL CONST PAGE 03
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Pagetwo
critical. The geotechnical investigations have verified the presence of dense, native,
relatively clean sand subgrade.
Thus, it is geotechnically acceptable to build a foundation (properly designed
and inspected by qualified engineers) beyond the so-called 40% top of slope
delineation.
Based on this engineer's on -site geotechnical Investigations, review of
topographic maps, discussions with Western Surveyors and owner, and a
reevaluation of the proposed residence footprint, the following are concluded:
The foundation line set back distance from the delineated top -of -slope line is
9p,ptechnIcally acceptilbig igl 120 fool (101,
Actual site conditions allow for the residence foundation to be constructed
beyond the 40% delineation line, subject to specialized foundation designs and
inspections.
It there are any questions, do nothesitate to call.
I EXPIR93 12/7-31 CIO
DMB..Vlb
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
0
is
ohlihj
-LANDSVERK QUAUTY HOMES, INC.
19511 941h Place West, Edmonds, WA 98020
Office 425-742-2742
March 8, 2000
City of Edmonds
Attn: MaryAnne,Zukowski
121 Yh Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear MaryAnne,
I am writing in response to your letter dated March 7, 2000 regarding my applications #CUT-99-225 &
#CUT-99-226.
Regarding a traffic control plan for construction vehicle ingress and egress onto State Route 524. This
application is only for a single family residence and should not need any specific tmffic control regulations.
All commercial trucks will enter the property off of SR524 from the east and will exit the property from the
Nance property on the east end of my property line. We will be building these homes simuhaneously, and
will be utilizing trucks to deliver to both homes in this manner. We have purchased a temporary easement
from the property owner at the juncture of the comer of 196h and the private road on the east end of the
Nance property to alleviate any potential problems with the comer being too tight.
This �should adequately address any concerns regarding construction ingress and egress. If you should need
additional information, please contact me at 425-742-2742. We have a fiLx available and would appreciate
your assistance i!,��citipg this.application or us in the
any correspondence you may have f
Sincerely,
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
January 14, 2000
City of Edmonds — M F& GKU W'EtL� , �ILAWN EF—
c/o Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
19511 - 94th, Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Duane Landsverk, President
mEET FILE
- v1pt P! A)(
Subject: Additional Geotechnical Criteria
Proposed Two New Single Family Residences
Lots No. I and 2, 19518 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
W-444V
December 17, 1999 geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendation
report by D. Bruce, P. E.
Based on the encountered relatively clean, sandy soils, and extensive site
vegetation, it is geotechnIcally acceptable to perform clearing and grading work in
the right-of-way zone, as well as the proposed Landsverk house footprint zones.
This work could occur during the winter and spring rainy seasons, subject to
comp,liance with City of Edmonds.permit requirements.
Normal siltation and. erosion control measures (siltation fencing, hay bales, etc.)
are geotechnically approved for rainy season grading work. These,erosion control
measures are subject to proper installation and ongoing maintenance, and inspection
by this engineer, as well as City of Edmonds inspectors.
This engineer installed flagging along the geotechnical top -of -slope "break"
line. It is recommended that surveyors define this line and transpose it onto the
existing topographic maps.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Pagetwo
This "top -of -slope" line should be referenced with regard to this engineer's
recommended set back distances.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Of WASIf..
ON L
rEXPIRES MY &420
. j
DMB:vIb
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
c?q x, pL
--METROSCAN PROPERTY PROALE=
F
Snohomish (WA)
OWNERSHIP INFORMATION
Parcel Number
:4�346i�000
058.06 00 RTSQ:03E -27N -13 -SE
Bldg Id Number
Of,
Record Type
:Platted Development Type:
Owner/Taxpayer
:Vjnyard--Lois M
CoOwner
Site Address
:*No Site Address*
Mail Address
:19518 94Th Pl W Edmonds Wa 98020
Phone
:Owner:425-778-2578 Tenant:
SALES AND LOAN INFORMATION
Recording Date
Loan Amount
Auditors Fee #
Lender
Sale Price
Loan Type
Deed Type
Interest Rate
% Owned
Vesting Type
ASSESSMENT AND TAX INFORMATION
Land
:'$'1''000 Levy Code :00213
Structure
2000 Taxes
Total
:$1,000 Senior Tax
% Improved
School Dist
Excise Number
Exemption :T
PROPERTY DESCRIPTION
Easement
Census
:Tract: Block:
Neighborhood
Code :528 MapGrid:454 H4
Zoning
:Rs-12000
Zoning Rest
Actual Use
Building Name
Land Use
:91000 Vacant,Undeveloped,Unused Land
Subdivision/Plat
:Edmonds Sea View Tracts
Legal
:BLK,,058KD-0,6 PRIV RD1DAF4- COM AT
:SW COR SD TR 58 TH NOO*19 22E ALG W
:LN SD TR 58 254.23FT TO NW COR S ...
Vol:3
Page :75
Profile -Page 1 of 2
The information Provided IS Deemed Reliable, But Is Not Guaranteed.
00 89 01
I
0?. .90 0 1
EXCELSIO-R PL--&
01 1 C+
am� — —19
4
192
iot a survey, it is a parcel map
location of property only
OA
59
56
0
01
561
0
S P
AF 840
E'T T-AWAM44 D G A
P. A. M., lu ly, '73
0
FILI& rid
John H. Vicklund
19515 94th Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425-776-3487
May 27, 2000
Duane Landsverk
19511 94" Pl. W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Utilities and Road Surfacing Permits
Dear Mr. Landsverk:
IR 7i,
#
Alf !
We have meet with Lyle Chrisman from the City Engineering Department to review the permits
and plans for your utilities and surfacing the Excelsior Pl. right of way. It is our understanding
that the following issues are addressed in the permit.
1 . Paving — Excelsior Pl. — The new pavement will be only 12 ft., with curbing to a
maximum width of 13-1/2 ft.
- Existing paved curve — The existing portion of road leading to the Excelsior Pl.
right of way will remain the same width with the same adjacent slope.
2. Water retention — No catch basins are required by the city along our property.
3. Grading — The grade level of the existing road does not need to be changed. The city
requires a 2 to 1 slope on land adjacent to the road.
At a maximum width of 13-1/2ft. this should not impact any of our trees along the road.
We will remove the ferns and ivy prior to grading.
4. Utilities — Sewer, water and power are to be placed under the road.
5. Notice — When work on the road is required you will call us at least one day in advance,
so that we can plan accordingly.
Shirley and I work as a team, and neither of us will respond to on -the -spot requests for
decision -making plans without a prior phone call. We both need to know your plans
before you begin work on the road.
During the course of preparation for building your residence at 19511 94 1h pl. W., you removed
a large limb from a Madrona tree on our property without our permission. We have had an
Arborist assess the value of the limb and expect to be compensated for this. The assessed
value for the limb is $1,050, and we have enclosed a copy of the arborists report. The arborist
has also assessed all the other trees in the private easement and along our property line. While
the city's permits do not require any tree removal, we will expect compensation for any trees
that are damaged or removed as a result of the roadwork.
Before you begin any work along the road that may affect our property please call me so that we
can discuss the plans.
Sincerely,
c�& /JiL,
ZJ h
n Vicklund
Shirley Vidklund
Cc.- F L. Dennis, B. Gilles, L Chrisman, Mayor Haakenson
I
,A, - -I .'
April 11, 2000
John & Shirley Vicklund
19515 94h Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
Hazardous Tree Evaluations & Appraisals
Site Analysis & Development Review
Urban Forest Planning & Wildlife Management MEN1819t
772
��Nulft I WEE-M W (a
SUBJECT: VALUE OF TREES DAMAGED OR REMOVED IN TIMBER
TRESPASS ON YOUR PROPERTY
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Vicklund:
This report is in response to the damage done to the large Madrona tree in the northwest
comer of your property and the removal of two small Madrona trees from the west edge
of your property. The removal of these trees and branches is understandably disturbing
given the good health of the plants, the aesthetic value they provided, and the screen they
provided from your view of the house below and west of yours.
We toured your property on Saturday, April 1, 2000. On Friday, April 7, 2000 1 returned
to further investigate the removal of the large limb and the removal of the two smaller
trees.
I then utilized the protocol of the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers to determine
a value. This process was creatdd in the mid 1930's and has been amended, revised and
perfected in eight subsequent processes. In 1975, the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers, (CTLA), was chartered by the leading professional organizations of the time
to again revise the process. The CTLA remains chartered to amend the process when
conditions warrant change. The professional supporting organizations inctudel
0 The American Association of Nurserymen, (AAN),
The Associated Landscape Contractors of America, (ALCA),
The American Society of Consulting Arborists, (ASCA),
The International Society of Arboriculture, (ISA), and
The National Arborist Association, (NAA).
The Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers continue to be the industry standard for
calculating the value of plants in the landscape. In 1988, the CTLA began an extensive
research project to update the process and clarify procedures. The outcome of four years
worth of work by the CTLA is The Guidefor Plant Appraisal, Eight Eifition, published
in 1992, and is the current industry standard used to determine the value of plants in the
2KnVi&Jund Madrona Valuation
Page I of 5
41W
%It
12823 N.E. 107th Place * Kirkland, WA 98033 * 425-822-4994 * Fax: 425-822-6314 - E-mail: bkgilles@aol.com
landscape. The process includes factors that influence the value of plants such as size,
species, condition and location. Methods are also outlined by which casualty losses and
damage from trespass can be assessed. This is the process I have utilized to prepare this
report.
REMOVAL OF TWO MADR:ONA TREES:
In respect to the removal of the two small Madrona, Arbutus menzieZii trees, I have used
the Cost Replacement Method to establish a value for the trees. Thismethodis
commonly used to determine the value of plants that are small enough to be transplanted-
gro und covers, shrubs and small trees. This method bases the value of the illegally
removed trees upon the cost to replace a tree with the same number and size of plant.
It is reasonable to extrapolate from the remaining trees near where these two trees were
removed, that these two trees were approximately 8 to 10 feet tall and in good to
excellent health. To make the fol ' lowing calculations 1 -contacted other professionals in
the area for prices and availability of plant material and for installation costs.
It is almost impossible to buy 8-foot tall Madrona trees --they are not generally available
in local nurseries for various reasons. However, commonly substituted trees are the
Arbutus, Arbutus marina, or the Strawberry Tree, Arbutus unedo. Both are closely
related and provide the same aesthetic and landscape values as the Madrona. They are
both available from local nurseries for approximately S250.00 each, plus tax. Installation
costs in the region today are approximately 2.5 to 3 times the value of the plants. That
will bring the value of the two trees removed to:
Cost of two Arbutus trees 8 to 10 feet tall = $ 500,00
Washington State Sales Tax = $ 43.00
Installation = $50OX2.5 = $1,250.00
Sub -Total = $1,793.00
THE REMOVAL OF THE LARGE LIMB ON THE CORNER. -
To determine the value of damage done to the large Madrona tree in the comer of your
lot, as prescribed by the Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, I first calculated the
value of the tree. I then estimated the percentage of damage done to the tree and
calculated the value as a percentage of the total value of the tree.
In this specific case, I determined the overall value of the Madrona based upon the
following criteria:
• Size —the tree is 20.2 inches in diameter measured the standard 4.5 feet above
the average ground level.
• Species Rating —the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the International Society of
Arboriculture gives the Madrona a 701/o Species Rating.
2KIWicklund Madrona Valuation
Page2 of5
0 0
Condition-1 judge the tree to be in good to excellent condition. As you
know, Madrona have been declining and dying all over the Puget Sound
Region for the last 25 years. Your tree is surprisingly healthy and vigorous.
The tree is free from any signs of fungal distortions on the trunk. There were
no apparent fungal infections in the leaves. There are no apparent structural
defects, no bacterial infections, nor any apparent insect infestations. The tree
has a significant lean to the west. This is typical of Madrona and not an
indication of decline. I rated the condition at 75%.
Location Ratinpa—according to the Council of Tree and Landscape
Appraisers, the Location Rating is a combined evaluation of the site, the
contribution the tree makes to the site, and the placement of the tree on the
site. I rated all three of these factors as high:
• The Site I rated at 70%,
• The Contribution of the tree at 80%, and
• The Placement of the tree at 75%.
• The combined/average Location Ratin is therefore 75%.
Using this information in the standard "Trunk Formula Method" for tree valuation, I have
determined the value of the Madrona tree to be $ 7, 000. 00
Even though the branch removed measured 10 inches in diameter where it was cut, and
the tree is 20.2 inches in diameter, this does not mean that half the value of the tree was
lost. I estimate that the volume of canopy removed was 15 to 20% of the total canopy of
the tree. I therefore utilized 15% to calculate the damage and loss to the tree.
15% X $7,000.00 = S1,050.00
COMBINED LOSS AND DAMAGE TO PROPERTY:
Therefore, the total loss and damage done to your property by the removal of the two
trees and the large limb is:
Removal of the two small Madrona trees - $1,793.00
The removal of the large limb $1,050.0
TOTAL: $2,843.00
Washington State Law allows plaintiffs in cases of wrongful plant removal and damage
to collect three times the value of the plants plus expenses. Expenses include things such
as: my expense to determine this value, the cost of maintenance of the replacement trees
for two or three years —until they are established, and the cost of attorney fees. In this
case then, 3 times $2,843.00 equals $8,529.00. My fee is $120.00. Two years of
watering and maintenance can be estimated to be no less than $240.00 for water,
fertilizer, weeding and tending. Without reasonable attorney fees this case would entitle
you to a settlement of $8,889. 00.
2KTWiddundMadrona Valuation
Page 3 of 5
0
Thank you for calling Gilles Consulting for your arboricultural needs. I hope this report
answers your questions. Please call me if I can provide more information or be of further
service.
Sincerely
Brian K. Gilles, Certified Arborist
PNW-0260
2KnVicidund Madrona Valuation
Page 4 of 5
. . I . 0 0
REFERENCES CONSULTED:
1. Council of Tree and Landscape Appraisers, Guide for Plant Appraisal, International
Society of Arboriculture Press, Savoy, 11L. Eighth Edition 1992
2. Eric Allen, et al. Common Tree Diseases ofBritish Columbia, Canadian
forest Service, Pacific Forestry Centre, Victoria, BC, Canada. 1996.
3. Harris, Richard W. et al, Arboriculture, Integrated Management of
Landscape Trees, Shrubs, and Vines, Aird Edition, Prentice Hall, Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey. 1999.
4. Johnson, Warren T. & Howard H. Lyon, Insects nat Feed on Trees and
Shrubs, Comstock Publishing Associates, a Division of Cornell University Press,
Ithaca, NY. 1991.
5. Mattheck, Claus Prof and Ass. Jur Mrs. Helge Breloer, The Body Language of
Trees, A Handbookfor Failure Analysis, HMS0, London, England. 1994.
6. Matheney, Nelda P. & Clark James R., Evaluation ofHazard Trees, Second
Edition, The International Society of Arboriculture Press, Savoy, Illinois. 1994
7. Pojar, Jim & MacKinnon, Andy, Plants ofthe Pacific Northwest Coast, Lone
Pine Publishing, Redmond, WA 1994.
8. Scharpf, Robert F. Diseases of.Pacific Coast Conifers, USDA Forest Service,
Agriculture Handbook 521, revised June 1993
9. Schuler, Stanley, et al, Guide to Trees, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1977.
10. Shigo, Alex L. Ph.D., A New Tree Biology, Facts, Photos, and Philosophies
on Trees and 1heir Problems and Proper Care. Shigo and Trees, Associates,
Durham, New Hampshire. 1993.
11. Sinclair et al, Diseases of Trees and Shrubs, Comell University Press, Ithaca,
NY, 1987.
2KTWicklund N6drona Vaivation
Page 5 of5
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
January 3, 2000
Landsverk Custom Homes
195 11-90 Place West
Edmonds, WA 98020
SUBJECT: Proposed Single Family Residence on 94" Place West
Doa A C
Dear ML4,aft&verk,
BARBARA FAHEY
MAYOR
I regret to inform you that the Engineering Division staff cannot review, the attached
drawings at this time because the drawings and design report do not accompany an actual
land use application.
It appears that some additional information will be required when you make your'
application. Minimally, additional contours must be provided. Infiltration is not likely to
be approved within the public right-of-way. A detailed temporary erosion control plan
and utility plan must be submitted for building permit review. You will be required to
meet the requirements of the Fire and Public Works Departments as well as the
requirements of the Building, Planning and Engineering Divisions of the Development
Services Department.
I understand from co-workers that you are considering subdivision of the site. I strongly
suggest you consider requesting a pre -application meeting if that is your intention. The
site presents some very unique challenges for subdivision.
I apologize for any inconvenience that my earlier comments may have caused. If you
have any questions, do not hesitate to contact me at (425) 771-0220, ext. 714.
Sincerely,
2RDO (C. HYDE
Development Services Engineer
GCH/crnc
Enclosures
c: Western Surveyors, Inc.; 13000 Highway 99 South; Everett, WA 98204; Attn: Donna Breske
GAENGR\G0RDY\Lwdsycrk.doc Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
0
49 FUZ I q611 *40f-K v)
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
May 9, 2000
Jim Walker, City Engineer
Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer
Timeline for Landsverk's Applications
Jim, I have attached the entire "history" of the Landsverk's application process according to
my records. As you know, the Landsverk's contacted numerous Engineering Division and other
City employees. Those other contacts may not be reflected in this timeline.
12/8/99
Landsverk applied for CU for tree cutting
12/10/99
Engineering received CU application
12/21/99
Engineering responded to Planning - complete application
12/28/99
Planning letter to Landsverk authorizing clearing
1/20/00
MDNS issued by J. Wilson
2/l/00
Engineering received Landsverk TESCP
2/2/00
GCH sent Landsverk TESCP to MAZ for review
2/4/00
GCH rec'd letter from Vicklund re: tree cutting
2/8/00
4:33-4:36 phone conversation GCH, & Meg Gruwell
2/9/00
GCH replied to Vicklund
2/10/00
9:09-9:20 phone conversation GCH & Duane re: sewer and paving
2/14/00
CU for tree cutting approved by Planning
2/16/00
8:16-8:21 phone conversation GCH & Duane re: permit status
2/18/00
GCH rec'd comments on TESCP from MAZ
2/18/00
GCH sent Landsverk TESCP to J. Walker for review
3/2/00
Landsverk's applied for SFR
3/2/00
1:23-1:31 phone conversation GCH & Duane re: permit status
3/3/00
4:02 phone call from Duane transferred to J. Walker
3/6/00
GCH rec'd comments on TESCP from JW
3/7/00
GCH sent comments to Western Surveyors on Landsverk TESCP
3/8/00
GCH sent Landsverk SFR to MAZ for review
3/9/00
9:00-9:37 Landsverk at counter
3/9/00
10:25-10:31 phone conversation GCH & Chad Cross re: sewer design
3/9/00
GCH ree'd revised Landsverk TESCP
3/9/00
GCH rec'd ROW construction permit for Excelsior Pl.
3/9/00
GCH sent ROW construction permit for Excelsior Pl. to DF
3/9/00
GCH sent revised Landsverk TESCP to MAZ
3/9/00
2:43 GCH rec'd call from Vicklund re: process
City of Edmonds
3/9/00
3:46-3:48 GCH returned call to Vicklund
3/10/00
8:02 Vicklund called GCH to set 2:00 meeting
3/10/00
2:00 - 3:00 GCH met Vicklund re: concerns
3/10/00
Landsverk applied for Nance SFR
3/16/00
GCH sent Nance SFR to DF for review
3/16/00
10:20 Duane's call to J. Walker forwarded to GCH re: status
3/17/00
9:29-9:47 GCH rec'd call from Vicklund re: Landsverk working
3/20/00
8:08 - 8:27 Landsverk at counter
3/20/00
9:28 GCH rec'd call from Vicklund re: fax
3/20/00
2:31 - 2:40 Deanne L. at counter with GCH
3/20/00
4:55 - 5:01 GCH rec'd call from Deanne L.
3/21/00
8:27 - 8:28 GCH rec'd call from Vicklund
3/21/00
10:30 GCH rec'd call from Duane L. thanking me for assistance
3/21/00
2:5 8 - 3:26 Landsverk at counter re: sewer
3/21/00
4:00 - 5:15 GCH rec'd call from Duane L discussing project
3/28/00
GCH rec'd comments on ROW construction permit from DF
3/28/00
GCH ree'd comments on revised Landsverk TESCP and SFR from MAZ
3/28/00
GCH sent Landsverk SFR and revised TESCP to J. Walker
3/28/00
GCH ree'd comments on TESCP from I Walker
3/28/00
GCH sent ROW permit comments to Landsverk
3/29/00
3:45 - 3:47 phone call from Duane, forwarded to DF
3/31/00
GCH rec'd comments on Landsverk SFR from I Walker
3/31/00
GCH sent comments on Landsverk SFR to Landsverk
3/31/00
GCH rec'd comments on Nance SFR from DF
3/31/00
GCH sent comments on Nance SFR to Landsverk
4/26/00
Landsverk submitted Nance SFR revisions
4/26/00
GCH sent revised Nance SFR to DF
511100
8:30 phone call from Deanne L. re: status of Nance
5/l/00
4:18 - 4:22 GCH returned call on Nance status
5/2/00
9:27 - 9:31 Deanne L at counter with GCH re: status
5/3/00
GCH rec'd comments on Nance SFR from DF
5/3/00
1:28 - 1:29 phone call from Duane L. re: status of Nance
5/3/00
3:42 - 3:44 phone call from Duane L. re: status of Nance
5/4/00
10:59 phone call from Deanne L re: status of Nance
5/4/00
11:49 phone call from Duane L. re: status of ROW permit
5/8/00
12:19 phone call from Deanne L. re: status of Nance
5/9/00
8:47 - 8:49 phone call from Duane re: status of Nance
5/9/00
GCH signed Nance SFR permit
5/9/00
4:50 phone call from Duane re: status of Nance
As you can see, I have had a lot of direct communication with the Landsverks, even though
I let them know early in March that I was not involved in their project. I believe that there are a
couple of reasons that the permit has taken so long to issue. Some City staff treated these
projects as development projects, not single family permits; the applicants, their consultants, and
the City have not always been prompt in submittal, resubmittal, and review; and the applicants
have not used the established procedure of contacting only one person within the permitting
section of Development Services to discuss the status of their permits.
Pre Application Meeting.
January 12, 2000 — 1:30 pni
Following is a summary, not a verbatim, transcript of the meeting. For the full text, a
copy of the tape can be obtained from the City of Edmonds Development Services Dept.
Applicant: Dwayne Landsverk
Site Address: Single Family, Excelsior Place
Attending: Re resenting Cily Sta Ray Miller, Steve Bullock, Gordy Hyde, John
Westfall
Representing Applicant: Dwayne Landsverk, Deanne Landsverk
Planning: (Steve)
Discussion where top of slope is going to be determined, either break or where it
changes to an incline of over 40%.
Required to have buffer of 5 0', but can be reduced to 10' depending on geotech
recommendation.
0 15' setback from buffer for house.
* 25' street setback.
0 Accessory structures are limited in height to 15'. Floor level can be lowered to
compensate. Height based from average grade.
* Applicant must sign covenant not to add accessory dwelling without proper permits.
0 Meg is processing tree clearing permits.'
* Improvements in public right of way have different review process than private.
Improvements in right of way may not be subject to same 50' buffer requirements.
Engineering: (Gordy)
• The following comments are the result of a brief review of preliminary plans. The
Engineering Division expects to make further comments and may impose additional
requirements upon receipt of a complete, detailed design submittal package.
• Preliminary design had infiltration in roadway which Eng. is not inclined to allow.
• Need better topographic representation along north side of roadway, but not where
slope gets so steep (over 40%).
.0 Applicant questioned setbacks off Excelsior. Is 50' from top of bank sufficient for
road improvements? Applicant wants information on sewer and water meters and
main locations. Hopes these permits are ready to issue now.
• Discussion re single family dwelling, costs, permits, site service hookups, etc. Until
plans are submitted, hard to make determination on exact standards. Applicant is
interested in potential subdivision and suggestions for planning for same now. Gordy
explained that street standards are very different for development v.'single family
dwelling. Sewer and water are secondary to street standards. Applicant wants
answers now regarding feasibility of future development.
• Discussion re slopes and practicality of installing water/sewer mains.
• Acknowledgement that all is hypothetical. For single family dwelling, what has been
proposed will work given a scenario of connecting to sewer, or side sewer only up
Pre App ]-I 2-OO.doc
0 0
Excelsior Place. Grade could be up to 20% with a waiver. Design improvements
would be minimal.
• Westfall said that with single family dwelling, exceptions have. been made in past for
internal protection with sprinkler system. Sprinkler systems address habitants, not
property. John li�s concerns with slope, access, bringing water in.
• Gordy said sprinkler systems fail to make an improvement to t he public/surrounding
property. If treated in a more traditional development standpoint, City wants a water
fine extended to property which costs applicant money but benefits public.
• Applicant stressed they are not planning to subdivide at this time and imposing a new
water line on a single family dwelling would be excessive.
• Discussion re original 1984 creation of lot regarding fire, access, sewer, etc.
• Ms. Landsverk clarified that they are not actually developing the lot, they just want to
put a single family dwelling on it, which- it was originally designed for.
• Gordy says that when property develops there is a developer responsibility to meet
Engineering Dept. requirements which could say you have to extend water, sewer,
etc. The City has been lax in the past as far as requiring developers to do this. The
City is getting better. Gordy feels that if the property had been developed in 1984 in
another jurisdiction, the developer would have been required to run a water line to far
property line. Then all this discussion would be moot. But that didn't happen.
• Single family review - drainage must be moved on, sewer may meet requirements as
is.
0 Water meter would be from spaghetti line off public line (which may not be possible
with current right of way situation) and may need to be placed elsewhere.
e. Applicant says his geotech (Dennis Bruce) says to keep in mind that vegetation is on
only downhill slope and to check soil types.
e Erosion control plan will be required with all tree cutting permits. On CUT permits,
City assumes applicant will provide a plan for erosion, review, redline, add to. Plan
will need to be stamped by city engineer. Then applicant cuts trees and resubmits
plan with erosion control features shown that Gordy reviews and approves. Drainage
will be reviewed then.
Fire: (John)
• John clarified that. applicant is proposing single family, but additional development
may occur in 5 -10 years on adjacent properties.
• Fire code is explicit. Water protection means a hydrant. As the property is developed
and/or pieced together, the end result must be adequate coverage. Code specifies 8"
or 6" with conditions.
• Minimum is 300' distance for fire hydrant placement to frontage of property per local
ordinance. Access, slope issues remain. No hydrant required here.
• Applicant wants to review per pending single family building application from Sylvia
Nance.
• Gordy: even if applicant developed property at same time as Nance, issue is still
clouded by potential development brought up by applicant.
0 Applicant requested review only of single family application.
Pre App I- I 2-00.doc
• Hydrant spacing requirements are 600' on center spacing. Fire protection adequate
for single family residence.'
• Gordy: Any improvements put into right of way are subject to being tom out when
future development or City decides to do a capital improvement. Applicant would be
developing public right of way as private driveway and would only need to meet
driveway standards.
• John: driveway standards are 12' paved. Turnaround required. Need 25' from right
of way to house.
• Gordy: Slope @ 14.4%. Exceptions up to 20% can be allowed. John will review
final to ensure adequate access.
• Applicant asked how steep slopes, hairpin turns, etc. areaddressed of improved when
new developments are being created beyond it?, Discussion re pre-existing
conditions in surrounding areas vs. improvernents to applicant's property.
END OF SINGLE FAMILY DWELLING APPLICATION MEETING.
DISCUSSION RE SUBDIVISION POTENTIAL:
Gordy: No further subdivision of this property can take place without sight distance
improvements. When accessing another property through right of way, easement,
roadway, etc., existing conditions are allowed. When lots are added, then street standards
must be met, which are based on the number of units that access the road. With existing
right of way, property could conceivably be developed into 4 lots. The next step is to go
to adjacent land owners and obtain additional rights of way, easements, etc. to obtain
minimum street standards.
Could require that grades be lowered to meet current standards -- depends on where
properties sit in relationship to where the slopes are as to how much slope of road would
have to be lowered.
Applicant: can City explain what are pre-existing conditions?
Gordy: again, these are hypotheticals. Applicant is responsible for frontage, but not pre-
existing off -site scenarios. If applicant can get neighbors to agree, City will allow
applicant to spend money in the right of way to make it safer for all future residents. On
Gordy's map, the property in question is only shown as an easement, not a public right- of
way. How the easement is written is critical. May be exclusive to owner only, not
successors and assigns. Applicant cautioned to investigate easements thoroughly.
Sewer will be fairly straightforward. If sewer stays in right of way and designed by
professional engineer, best to design as 8" sewer.. Depth of line will be determined by
engineer. Tactor in lay of land and development potential.. Manholes every 400'.
Applicant: to maintain level pipe they've got 2 manholes. If Sylvia Lance ties into pipe,
would City allow a 6" clean -out at end?
Pre App 1-12-OO.doc
0 - 0
Gordy:'Yes, but last manhole should be within 100' of that. Only 100' of run between
clean outs. Water will need a line extension and hydrant. 8" is required on dead-end
lines in Edmonds. Total extension is 700 — 800 feet of water line across frontage. 2"
blow -off will probably be in a meter box. Roadway improvement will be based on
number of units applicant thinks they'll get. Zone is R- 1.2, so applicant has 10 lot
potential. With neighboring lots, the road width has to be enough to support over 20
houses. 40' road needed, with curbs, gutters and sidewalks across entire frontage. May
not be able to develop to full potential. There is a little piece of property needed for
necessary road width that could be difficult for property owner to give up at any cost.
Applicant pointed out that some property owners are already extremely upset and trees
that border right of way — does the City's fight with them or?
Gordy: it is a public right of way, public owns it. City is steward of it and is responsible
for treating it in an envirom-nentally conscious and economically favorable manner. They
can't come in and tell the City that because they own adjacent property they don't want
the City to cut the trees -down. Given that what's happening is being done under the
auspices of approval of the City based upon an approved single family building permit
and CU permit for tree cutting within private and adjacent public property, don't think
that they have anything to say.... But if the trees are in the public right of way and blow
down, do you suppose they'll go to insurance company and ask for reimbursement?
People often don't want a tree cut down, but who is responsible for tree'if it falls down?
City won't allow hazardous trees to cause damage to private property.
Applicant: could come up steep. slope with sewer, but plan to be safer by coming in a
different way.. Could cause frustration with neighbors who think applicant could go a
different route.
Gordy: since applicant is dedicating a public improvement, City would be less thanvise
to look a gift horse in the mouth. City would rather have 600' sewer than private side
sewer. Tree cutting ordinance, Hearing Examiner has looked at it, soils engineers,
geotechs, etc. all agree no detrimental effects of putting sewer in that scenario, plus
possibility to serve more properties in the future, and it's free. Doesn't see a problem.
Single family permits are riot normally subject to a hearing process. Unless neighbor
app . eal� tree cutting permit, there is nothing there.
Applicant: can't imagine neighbor not getting involved.
Gordy: we'll deal with that when we get there.
Applicant asked if there would be a requirement to put a guard rail in for single family
application?
Gordy: No. It is an existing road.
Applicant asked for tape to be turned off.
Pre App 1-1 2-OO.doc
E
ED
PREnAPPLICATION MEETING
'a'. IS90 Notification & Plans
To:
Building El Engineering E] Fire [.I Planning El Ray Nfiller E]
From:
Jana Linda
Date:
January 5, 2000
Meeting Date:
January 12, 2000
Meeting Time:
1:30 p.m.
Applicant!,
Duane Landsverk
Contact Info:
425.754.2069
Project:
SF Dwelling and utility improvements
I have e-mailed each of you and scheduled this on your calendar. Attached please find the plans for this
meeting.
RECEIVED
JAN 5 - 2000
ENOINMING
Cindy Bouldin - FYI
c:pmp.preapmtgpadcdmemo.doc
MEMORANDUM
Date: January 6, 2000
To: Don Fiene, PE; Assistant City Engineer
From: Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer
Subject: Pre -application review package
Attached is a plan set for a pre -application meeting from Duane Landsverk to build one large
single family residence on 94" Pl. W. off Puget Dr. Please note that Mr. Landsverk has extended
the topography information north of the Excelsior Pl. right-of-way. Please review this
preliminary application or have Mary Anne review it and return your general comments so I can
represent the Engineering Division at the pre -application meeting on January 12. Thank you.
City of Edmonds
Development Services Department
-(0 C. 1 S 01
0 0
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
March 20, 2002
Landsverk Quality Homes
Attn: Duane Landsverk
1951190 Place W.
Edmonds, -WA 98020
RE: Right of Way Construction, Pavement Failure
Dear Mr. Landsverk:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Your letter of February 6, 2002 advised us that you were in the process of taking the
necessary steps to have the pavement that is failing on Excelsior Place repaired, and that
you would inform us as soon as you had a confirmed schedule date for doing the repairs.
To date, we have not received your schedule. Please advise us by April 1, 2002 of your
plans and schedule for repairing the failed right-of-way improvements.
If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call Danielle Gilbert or me at 425 771
0220.
Sincerel
DAVID K. GEBERT, P.E.
City Engineer
Incorporated August 11, 1890
.qi-tor C.ihy - Hp-kiinan- .1anan
0
CITY OF EDMONDS GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
To"
December 26, 2001 CERTIFIED MAIL
Landsverk Quality Homes
Attn: Duane Landsverk
19511 940'Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Right of Way Construction, Pavement Failure
Dear Mr. Landsverk:
It has come to the City's attention that the pavement on Excelsior Place that you
constructed during the past year has failed. There is significant settlement and cracking
along the south edge of the pavement and settlement in the road shoulder for the majority
of the length of the frontage along the property at 19515 94 th . Place West. The failure is a
result of materials and/or workmanship for which you, as the developer/contractor who
constructed these right-of-way improvements, are responsible.
--Please advise us by January 11; 2002 of your plans and schedule for repairing the failed
right-of-way improvements. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to call
Danielle Gilbert or me at 425 7710220.
Sincerely,
DAVID K. GEBERT, P.E.
City Engineer
12-12-1-01
44w -k
��Cr_e4_W A+ CJ
Dot. -6(rl nJ
�Py. wp�
1-5 ay\4
Incorporated August 11,
Sister Citv - Hekinan. JaDan
6:
Date: 4 January, 2001
To: File
From: Lyle Chrisman, Development Services Engineer dx�
Subject: Paving at 19511 94th PL W under building permit #A22340
Jeanie McConnell inspected the asphalt paving by Landsverk's contractor. She came in and tole
me the cross slope in and around the Vicland's driveway was between 4-6%. We looked at the
approved.plans which clearly stated 2% cross slope. So we visited the site and after looking at
the existing grade relationship between the Vicland's driveway and surrounding grades, it
appeared the existing road surface sloped more than 2%. 1 told Jeanie we had two options. One:
Have Duane raise the slope of the road to the required 2%, but that would raise the Vicland's
driveway approach higher and increase ponding in their driveway. Two; Leave the road slope as '
is,* pave the driveway approach, thus minimizing any ponding. I decided Duane did not have to
adjust the road grade because I did not want to create a ponding problem or increase an existing
one. I instructed Jeanie to leave him a correction notice with the appropriate. instructions to
correct the situation.
City of Edmonds
0
0
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
3 January, 2001
File
Lyle Chrisman, Development Services Engineerxx/-
Paving at 19511 94th PL W under building permit # Zo4�koeb
Mrs. Vicland called this p.m. and said Landsverk was paving. I had Jeanie McConnell go out to
inspect the paving operation. She returned stating she could not get in because both end were
closed off with paving equipment and trucks. I suggested shego out tomorrow and check the
cross slope of the road, installation of the berm and whether he paved behind the berm at the
Vicland's driveway and removed the pipe under the Vicland's driveway.
City of Edmonds
0
Date:
To:
From:
Subject:
MEMORANDUM
2 January, 2001
File
Lyle Chrisman, Development Services EngineerA
Paving at 19511 94th, PL W under building permit #Z100-560
Jeanie McConnell, City Engineering Inspector, and I visited the subject site to inspect the road
surface in preparation for paving tomorrow. During our visit, Mr. Landsverk arrived, so I went
over a few items of concern. I explained to Duane the road had to be constructed per the
approved plans and the drain pipe he installed across the Vicland's (neighbor) driveway had to
be removed. I reminded him of the required asphalt thickened edge and the runoff must go to the
catch basin and not be allowed to sheet flow down the road. Duane asked if the berm needed to
be 18" wide on his property and I said no, but did in City right-of-way. As we approached the
Vicland's driveway, I mentioned to Duane the cross slope of the road (within the right-of-way)
appeared to be greater than 2%. Duane stated the approved drawings stated 2% min. and since
the drawings were not available, I took his word for it and told him the road could be no more
than 3%. 1 informed Duane he would have fill in behind the thickened edge to include the
Vicland's driveway. I suggested he pave back to the Vicland's property, so the transition would
be smooth. He said he would think about it. I then pointed out to him the need to adjust the
sewer manholes to the proper grade and told him he could tie into the existing asphalt surface
just to the S. of the existing sewer manhole and did not have to pave to the bottom of the hill.
Duane understood all that I told him, so Jeanie and I left. i
City of Edmonds
77�
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-02�1
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
March 24, 2000
Landsverk Quality Homes
Attn: Duane Landsverk
19511 94hPl W
Edmonds, WA 98020
60, 19?
SUBJECT: Right -of -Way Permit for Sewer Main Extension
Dear Mr. Landsverk,
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Public Works had two corrections to your sewer main extension right-of-way permit.
Their primary concern was to make sure that all future necessary utilities could be routed
through the narrow twenty -foot section of right-of-way. Please designate alignments for
storm, sanitary sewer and future water. We prefer to see 5 feet of separation between any
utility and require ten feet between water and sanitary sewer. The existing sewer line
running north and south must be extended to the north to allow your new sewer main to
run parallel to the edge of the right-of-way. An additional manhole must be placed
within the right-of-way to allow for this extension.
Public Works second comment was to install any side sewers planned during main line
construction stub out to the property line. Terminate at the property line with a clean -out.
Please coordinate placement of any other utilities needed such as gas, phone, power, etc.
so that they can be installed in a joint trench to minimize use of the right -of way.
Please have your engineer resubmit the drawings with the changes listed above. If you
have any questions please do not hesitate to contact me at 425-771-0220, ext. 329.
Thank you,
ofo�-Jw&
Jeanie McConnell
Engineering Technician
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister CitV - Hekinan. Javan
A
TRAFFIC SAFETY FEATURE. -
BREAK OFF FLANGE, NUTS -
AND BOLTS.
N 0 T E S :
1/4' RAKE PER FOOT FROM
GROUND LEVEL
STORZ ADAPTER
12'. r
MIN.
WEDGE VALVE
RESTRAINED JOINTS
Lt /-OR TIE RODS V
7 1 '--18'xlB'x4'
CONC. BLK.
UN DISTURBED EARTH
112 CY WASHED 1-112' MINUS ROCK
WITH FABRIC CLOTH ABOVE
THRUST BLOCK
BASE COURSE
CAST IRON ADJUS TABLE
VALVE BOX
TEE WITH FLANGED
CONNECTION FOR
HYDRANT VALVE
11
L FLANGED tONNECTION
HYDRANT CONNECTION PIPE TO
BE DUCTILE IRON CLASS. 52. ANY
INTERMEDIATE JOINTS TO BE
RESTRAINED
1. HYDRANTS AND ALL MATERIALS TO BE IN ACCORDANCE WITH CITY OF EDMONDS
APPROVED MATERIAL LISTINGS.
2. HYDRANTS SET IN CONCRETE REQUIRES AN EXPANSION STRIP AROUND HYDRANT
BARREL. IN ADDITION, THE INSTALLATION OF THE HYDRANT ON PRIVATE
PROPERTY SHALL EQUAL OR EXCEED STANDARDS SET FORTH FOR THE INSTALLATION
OF PUBLIC FIRE HYDRANTS.IN THE CITY OF EDMONDS.
3. PROVIDE FOR VEHICULAR TRAFFIC PROTECTIM
4. ALL HYDRANTS SHALL BE PROVIDED WITH (2) 2-1/2- HOSENOZZLES AND
(1) 4-1/2' NST PUMPER NOZZLE WITH 4' STORZ QUICK COUPLING ADAPTER.
5. STEAMER PORT SHALL FACE THE STREET OR ROADWAY FOR FIRE ENGINE ACCESS.
6. THREE FOOT MINIMUM CLEARANCE SHALL BE MAINTAINED AROUND HYDRANT
WHEN PLACING LANDSCAPING OR ROCKERIES (ETC).
7. FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE PAINTED INTERNATIONAL YELLOW.
ldgo-lggv
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
FIRE HYDRANT ASSEMBLY
DATE SCALE DVIG NO.
5/14/98 NTS E7.1
13
BLIND FLANGE OR--
SMALLE
Rl lNn rl ANrr
AND FLANGE
CAPPED CROSS
1.
TEE
CROSS
CAP
d
--> D
P,
22-112x BEND
b
B
TEE W/PLUG
901 BEND
d
D
11-1/0 BEND
PLUG
NOTES: -
THRUST BLOCK TABLE 1. BEARING AREA OF CONCRETE THRUST BASED ON 20 1 PSI PRESSURE AND
SAFE SOIL. BEARING LOAD OF 2X0 POUNDS PER SQUARE FOOT.
mjK BEARING AREA AGAINST UNDISTURBED SOIL 2. AREAS MUST BE ADJUSTED FOR OTHER PIPE SIZES, PRESSURES, AND
SQUARE FEET SOIL CONDITIONS.
I MIN. DIST (IN FEE
ldgo-lggu
3. CONCRETE BLOMING SHALL 5L L#Ql in rLmL mu nmvL A MINIMUM
OF 1/4 SQUARE FOOT BEARING AGAINST THE FITTING.
4. BLOCIC SHALL BEAR AGAINST FITTINGS ONLY AND SHALL BE CLEAR OF
JOINTS TO PERMIT TAKING LIP OR DISMANTLING A.JOINT. .
5. CONTRACTOR SHALL INSTALL BLOMING ADEQUATE TO WITHSTAND FULL
TEST PRESSURE AS WELL AS TO CONTINUOUSLY WITHSTAND OPERATIONAL
PRESSURE UNDER ALL CONDITIONS OF SERVICE.
0, BLOCKING NAY BE REDUCED WITH USE OF RESTRAINED JOINTS ADJACENT
TO FITTINGS.
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
CONCRETE THRUST BLOCKING
DATE 5/14/98 1 SCALE NTS I DWG NO. . E7.9.
-1-
LIMII Qv HIFL L
IMPORTED MATERIAL F
PER SPECIFICATIONS
TYPE OF PIPE
FOUNDATION LEN
la9o-199U
N 0 T E S :
a[PE BASE
P
1. PROVIDE UNIFORM SUPPORT UNDER BARREL
2. HAND TAMP UNDER HAUNCHES
3. COMPACT BEDDING MATERIAL TO. 95% MAX DENSITY
.0 F- �,--'ED M: 0.
REVISIONS STAN DAR D 'D ETAI L
PIPE BEDDING
DATE 5/14/98 SCAU NTS DWG NO. E4.1
I
TRENCH EDGES MUST BE SAW -CUT
AND TACKED PRIOR TO FINAL,
TRENCH PATCH ,
6" MIN DEPTH
5/8" CSTC
LL_
CN
u
0
<
m
�_ z
ui
ud
x
o <
0
REFER TO SPECIFICATIONS
FOR TYPES OF PIPE
MAX TRENCH PATCH
PAY WIDTH
(SEE TABLE BELOW)
------------------
I -----------------
--------------- --
------------------
olf
of
N 0 T E:
REFER TO CITY OF EDMONDS MODIFICATION TO THE
STANDARD. SPECIFICATIONS FOR TYPE AND GRADATION.
TABLE
1: MAX
TRENCH
PATCH PAY WIDTH
TRENCH
DEPT4-'
PAY
WIDTH
1 1 -4'
40"
4'- 10'
60"
10'-20"
72",
la9o-199V
3" MIN DEPTH CL 'B'
AC TRENCH PATCH
BACKFILL MATERIAL
(SEE NOTE.BELOW)
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
TYPICAL TRENCH SECTION
.0 . ATE 5/14/98 SCALE NTS DWO NO. I E4.2
LJ
z
—i
RESIDENCE
0
w
CLEANOUT WITH 453K CL
BEND AND CAP
NOT TO EXCEED 100' BETWEEN
CLEAN OUTS
CLEANOUT (WYE WITH CAP
AND LAMPHOLE COVER)
121+/-
I - LAMPHOLE
\-WATER TIGHT CAP.
RISER
12 " PVC
SLEEVE
6" RISER
4' OR 6' SIDE SEWER-J
GENERAL CLEANOUT DETAIL
12'
AS PHALT SURFACE
6' WYE AND 45m
AND 1/8 BEND
z
Ld
M
G
of
0 uj
af Z
al —i
6" CITY STUB
4' OR 6' SIDE SEWER-J
CLEAN OUT DETAIL AT PROPERTY LINE
LAMPHOLE COVER (OLYMPIC FOUNDRY CO)
MODEL 5931 OR EQUAL
6' RISER
12" PVC SLEEVE
K�o NOTE:
L PVC CAP SIDE.SEWER JOINTS SHALL' BE
TYPICAL CL ANOUT UNDER ASPHALT GASKETED
OR CONCRETE
1690-1 99u
REVISIONS STANDARD DETAIL
SEWER CLEANOUT DETAILS
DATE 5/14/98 SCALE NTS OWG -NO. E6.2
City of Edmonds
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: -Y C e'l .5,
Permit NoPW
Ik—
Issue Date: 51111 C) o
B. Type of Work (be specihc): 64--r-ow, C,,,l tt.,AT704 P,11d
C. Contractor:
Mailing Address: "04
Phone:
State License #: Liability Insurance: Bond:$
D. Building Permit# (if applicable): 60 6') 061 Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):—
E. F] Commercial Subdi-6sibn El City Project F
EUC (PUD, GTE, PSE, CHAMBERS, OVWD)
Multi -Family Single Family ther
fNSPECTOR-
F. PAVEMENT: Z-VES F�NO G. SIZE OF CUT x H. Charge: $
CONCRETE CUT: F-1 YES F�NO
APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
IDEMNITY. Applicant understands by hislher signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless from' injuries,
damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or urf�reseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds or
any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs and
attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIPiAND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE4FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FIVAL STREET'PA'CH IS
�T
COMPLETED BYCITYFORCES, AT WHICHTIMEA DEBITOR CREDIT WILL BEPROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE To THEAPPLICANT.
* Traffic control and public safety shall be in acc6rdance,with City' regul Ations as'required by the City Engineer. Every
flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the
required training in their possession.
* Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench work shall be patched with asphalt or -City -
approved material prior to the end.of the workday — NO EXCEPTIONS.
* Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application.
I HA VE READ AB VE STATEMENT,,SAN'D UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENEV AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THATIM T THE PINK C OF,�rftE PERMIT A VAILABLE ON SITE)l T ALi TIMES FOR INSPECTIONS
Vignatu e: Date:
(Contractor or Agent)
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555)'PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
A,
FOR CITY�.l
Approved, by: At-04'-' , - I �k \
'Time Authorized-- Void'After 51-1 10/at
Spe'cial,,Conditions: 4AW 1529- IASKMOA w1d"
PAW 6W*J4 - IV-"w, Vr#6�v'&5 bee6W�rJILettk.
K4 ",A'
,JV455Vs" +es,60r PmL G�t-3e, iAd,14, -
"t;e/14 �y a P"e 9"�-e -r meA ',A I _5
4& M 17d e *'#K A-014- & W d^t I It
SE ONLY
: f
Right-of-way Fee:
\'Disruption Fee/Fund 111:
\Restoratiqn Fee:
Jot I Fee?115.
Receipt No: I*SAoql
Issued byv-�,NWIM"JA
UPON COMPLETION OF PERMITTED WORK, AN ENGINEERING FINAL
INSPECTION IS REQUIRED PER CHAPTER,18.00 OF THE EDMONDS
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE.
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK,;4 f1t4
;i'PO R PS OSI GffNLA T UR E-4;: � D A T E:
For inspection requirements see Engineering Information Handout.
I NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE
NELSON-COUVRETTE & AssoclATEs,
CONSUL77NG GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
17311-135th Ave. NE, A-500 13424 Chain Lake Rd.
Woodinville, WA 98072 Monroe, WA 98272
Tel (425) 486-1669 Tel (425) 788-5612
Fax (425) 481-2510 Fax (360) 794-4M2
TO Jaokynrk Qtjaj-,�v m es
19511- 11-Ek pinfelwp-s�
Fd1nn1wk - 1A q8O2O R 9101
AUG 0
> WE ARE SENDING YOU 0 Attached 0 Under separate cover via-
0 Copy of letter 0 Prints 0 Plans
0
LETTER 06TRANSMITTAL
DATE I FILE NO. v5
1 9 /-7 lrx-) 5-x I
ATTENTION
RE:
the following items:
0 Samples 0 Specifications
COPIES DATE NO. DESCRIPTION
IELP W0.0 'r
THESE ARE TRANSMITTED as checked below:
0 For approval 0 Approved as submitted
)(For your use 0 Approved as noted
0 As requested 0 Returned for corrections
0 For review and comment 0
REMARKS
COPY TO C
SIGNED:
if enclosures are not as noted, kindly notify us at once.
0
NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.
CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS
-D ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS
17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Project: Lcm6"Qf;�
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425) 486-1669 - (425) 337-1669 Owner:
Fax (425) 481-2510
Location:
Weather: 5U.vv\�4 —Iul
Purpose 6^ \�D
of Visit:
FIELD REPORT
File No.Z�1513cc
Date: 2�� 4 1co
Report No. �
Page: of
-Tt
By: I rx—
Attachments:
Distribution:
Signed:
sp.�-
IN -PLACE MOISTURE AND DENSITY TESTS
JOB NUMBER:
REPORT NO.:
��Wm*m
PROCTOR METHOD:
ASTM D - 698-91 1 ASTM D - 1557-91
kMlj67Wo1 Z 10111919:1 DID
GENERAL
LOCATION
I*
v
'A" 7-lor
----------
--------------
---------- T_
T------ --------------
PO*V VAUr
WATER VALVE
Fff HYWMT 8XCE logo
I -j-
4--i I I- o SU-SSW# -
E 2 omw
-263�1 ?NEW
232.05
30'ACCESS & UI1UrY OU
A.F. NaS 6406290222 &
TCOW-25139
J 'S)-251.09
E [[-IW 1k7A11%'A*\ 1.
elm
2 6
4318
;�SED CONC M "40'ACCESS U_;;�
ExIS17NO I7U EASEMENTS
W12-112 BRASS DISK.
JtLF. NaS 1423034 1867165.,�% R
co-M I
TOP-24&0,
12?9.3
8'ja'w IE (K I :z ------ -- 1:;:;;
IE - ------- ... ....
0
--- - ----- ---
----------------------
IN.
------------------ -
EXISTING C4�c;;C, MON. .20-ff
WINA4. LAST VISITED. IVOO MOO*39'36'E
V 28
EXISTING CASED CONC, MON. L-141
W12-112- BRASS DISK,
LAST VISITED. 11/90 CAP
SURFACE MONUMENT
LAST W_qTEO. 11190
. 1004610,
/V 00 EtOARS (IN)
(ryp)
0
0
-poor
0
7 q.. I
---------------- .................
- -----------
-----------
6.
-----------
......... 2ss -----------
5 2 4
'NV 4' W,
i56
).28
loe
,,Ooo' 129&.91
1100,
Al
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 - 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA 98020
PLANNING DIVISION
ADVISORY REPORT
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
RECEIVED
To:
File #CU-99-226
FEB 16 2000
From:
Meg WWell ENGINEERiNG
Planner
Date:
FEBRUARY 14,2000
File:
CU-99-226
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section Page
1.
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................... .................................... 0 .................... 1
A. APPLICATION ............................................................................................................................. 1
B. DESCRIPTION OF PROPOSAL ....................................................................................................... 2
C. DECISION .................................................................................................................................................... 2
H.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................... 3
A. SITE DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................... .................. 3
B. EDMONDS COMmuNiTy DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE ....................................................... 4
C. EDMONDS COMPREHENSIVE PLAN COMPLIANCE ........................................................................................ 7
D. TECHNICAL COMMITTEE ............................................................................................................................ 8
In.
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS ..................................................................................................... 8
A. REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION .............................................................................................................. 8
B. APPEALS ..................................................................................................................................................... 8
IV.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL .............................................................................................................................. 8
V.
ATTACHMENTS ............................ o ............................................................................................................ 8
V1.
PARTIES OF RECORD ............................................................................................................................... 9
1. INTRODUCTION
A. Application
1. Applic : Duane Landsverk (see Attachment 2).
2.- Site Location: 9123 — 190h Street SW (see Attachment 1).
3. Reques: A Conditional Use Permit to allow clearing for the construction of a single-
family residence and yard area in a Single Family Residential (RS-12) zone (see Attachments
CUT-99-226.doc / February 14, 2000 / Staff Report
. Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 2 of 9 CA
2 and 3). The request also includes allowing the removal of trees in a view corridor to the
southwest.
4. Review Process: Conditional Use Permit with an optional public hearing followed by a staff
. decision.
5. Major Issues:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 18.45
(LAND CLEARING AND TREE CUTTING).
b. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.15B
(CRITICAL AREAS).
c. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Section 20.95
(APPLICATION AND STAFF REVIEW).
d. Compliance with the City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan (especially VEGETATION
AND WILDLIFE).
B. Description of Proposal
The applicant is proposing to construct a house for the property owner on a lot which is designated
on the city's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map as having a Slope Environment, therefore all
tree cutting requires a permit. The applicant wishes to clear the area where the house, driveway,
yard and possibly utilities will be. In addition, the applicant has requested to remove select trees to
open a view corridor along the southwest comer of the property and states he intends to leave the
stumps and all ground vegetation in place in the steeper view corridor area. The clearing plan is
included as Attachment 3.
C. Decision
Based on statements of Fact, Conclusions, and Attachments in this report, the application for a
Conditional Use Permit for tree removal is APPROVED IN PART AND DENIED IN PART as
follows:
The request to cut trees in the view corridor, which is the hand -drawn line on Attachment 3 to the
southwest of the house is DENIED, except that if the following conditions are met, tree cutting
can be allowed as detailed below:
A critical areas study, which is a topographic survey prepared by a Licensed Land Surveyor
delineating Steep Slope Hazard Areas must be completed. Any slope of 40% or more with at
least 20 feet of rise will be classified as a Steep Slope Hazard Area. A 50-foot buffer is
required from both the top and toe of the slope, unless a geotechnical engineer states that this
can be reduced to 10 feet and that is approved as allowed in ECDC Section 20.15B. I I O.A.
The map should show both the steep slope area, the top and toe of bank, and the required
buffer.
2. The area that is determined in the critical areas study to be a steep slope hazard area shall be
placed in a separate critical areas tract, which shall be designated as a native growth protection
easement per ECDC 20.15B.160.A. The applicants shall submit the map of the critical areas
tract to the Planning Division.
3. The owners of the property shall record with the records division of Snohomish County a
notice in a form approved by the city providing notice of the presence of critical areas or
buffers on the property, the application of the Critical Areas chapter to the property, and that
limitations on actions in or affecting such areas or buffers may exist per ECDC 20.15B. 160.B
4. Any tree cutting within the steep slope hazard area or its buffer shall only be allowed if the
city grants an exemption or exception pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.040, a variance is granted
CUT-99-226.doc /February 14, 2000 /Staff Repon
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 3 of 9
pursuant to ECDC 20.15B.170(A), or unless the development or alteration is one of the ones
listed in ECDC 20.15B. 11 O.D.
The request to cut the trees in the building pad of the residence and driveway, except for the trees
shown as being preserved, is APPROVFD subject to the following conditions:
I It is not clear from the drawing if some of the trees proposed to be cleared to the
southwest of the proposed house are actually in the steep slope hazard area buffer. No
trees may be cut within the steep slope hazard area and its buffer unless they qualify under
the exemptions or exceptions as stated above.
2. Three replacement trees for each tree removed in areas that will not have impervious
surfaces shall be planted on the subject property within one year of tree removal. If it is
difficult to calculate which trees came from which area, then one tree shall be replanted
for each tree that is removed from the entire building area shown as the hand -drawn lines
around the proposed house on Attachment 3. The replacement trees shall be native trees,
similar in species to the ones that were removed and that meet the size requirements given
in ECDC 20.12.015.B. A replanting plan showing the species, size and location of the
proposed trees to be replanted must be submitted prior to planting, for staff review and
approval.
3. Trees that are shown outside the hand -drawn lines as trees that are to be retained shall be
protected during tree cutting and construction as directed in ECDC Section 18.45.050.H.
4. An erosion control plan shall be submitted to and approved by the City Engineer prior to
construction approval.
5. The applicant shall comply with any restrictions imposed by the state Department of
Fisheries or Department of Wildlife.
6. This application is subject to the applicable requirements contained in the Edmonds
Community Development Code (ECDC). It is the responsibility of the applicant to ensure
compliance with the various provisions contained in these ordinances.
11. FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS
A. Site Description
1. Site Development, Neighboring Development, And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The subject property is oddly shaped and is roughly two triangles that have
been put together, the smaller triangle coming from a portion of the lot to the west.
The site contains approximately 41,642 square feet (see Attachments I & 3).
(2) Land Use: The property is currently undeveloped.
(3) Zonin : The zoning of the subject property is Single -Family Residential (RS-12)
(see Attachment 1).
(4) Terrain and Vegetation: The subject property slopes gradually to the west except
for the southern portion which slopes steeply down to State Route 524. The site is
covered with trees and an understory of primarily native vegetation. The applicants
have drawn a line around trees they wish to retain, which include several cedar trees
on the site which they wish to retain. The site has numerous evergreen trees,
including Douglas fir trees, Hemlock, and others, and deciduous trees, including
Alder and Maple trees. The understory includes salal, ferns, and some non-native
species.
3 CUT-99-226.doc / February 14, 2000 / Staff Report
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 4 of 9
2. Surrounding Development and Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) North, East, and West: These areas are currently zoned Single -Family Residential
(RS- 12) and are developed with single family homes (see Attachment 1).
(2) South: This area is currently zoned Public Use (P) and is the Maplewood Hill Park
(see Attachment 1).
B. Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) Compliance
1. ECDC Section 18.45 (Land Clearing and Tree Cuffing)
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Chapter 18.45 exempts clearing on an undeveloped lot that are not capable of
being fin-ther subdivided, except for that portion of the lot that is located in a
designated environmentally sensitive area, and except for that portion of the lot that
has slopes exceeding 25 percent.
(2) The city's Environmentally Sensitive Areas Map which was adopted by the City
Council, shows the entire lot within a designated Slope Environment.
(3) Some of the purposes of ECDC Section 18.45.000.A-M state a desire to:
(a) To promote the public health, safety, and general welfare of the citizens of
Edmonds by preserving the physical and aesthetic character of the city through
the prevention of indiscriminate removal or destruction of trees and ground
cover on undeveloped or partially developed property;
(b) To implement the policies of the State Environmental Policy Act of 1971 as
revised in 1984;
(c) To implement and further the goals and policies of the city's comprehensive plan
in regard to the environment, open space, wildlife habitat, vegetation, resources,
surface drainage, watershed, and economics;
(d) To ensure prompt development, restoration and replanting and effective erosion
control of property during and after land clearing;
(e) To promote land development practices that result in a minimal adverse
disturbance to existing vegetation and soils within the city;
(f) To minimize surface water and ground water runoff and diversion;
(g) To aid in the stabilization of soil, and to minimize erosion and sedimentation;
(h) To minin-dze the need for additional storm drainage facilities caused by the
destabilization of soils;
(i) To retain clusters of trees for the abatement of noise and for wind protection;
To acknowledge that trees and ground cover reduce air pollution by producing
pure oxygen from carbon dioxide;
(k) To preserve and enhance wildlife and habitat including streams, riparian
corridors, wetlands and groves of trees;
(1) To promote building and site planning practices that are consistent with the
city's natural topographic and vegetation features while recognizing that certain
factors such as condition (e.g., disease, danger of falling, etc.), proximity to
existing and proposed structures and improvement, interference with utility
services, and the realization of a reasonable enjoyment of property may require
the removal of certain trees and ground cover;
(m) To promote the reasonable development of land in the city of Edmonds.
(4) ECDC Section 18.45.045.B states that "The city may require a modification of the
clearing plan or the associated land development plan to ensure the retention of the
4 CUT-99-226.doc / February 14,2000 / Staff Report
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 5 of 9
maximum number of trees. If the staff determines that the plan will result in the
destruction of more trees and vegetation than is reasonably necessary to achieve the
proposed development the permit shall be denied."
(5) The performance standards for land development permits are given in ECDC Section
18.45.050.
(6) The following are included as part of this proposal:
(a) The applicant is proposing to remove all trees in the areas where the house and
driveway are proposed.
(b) It appears the applicant is also requesting permission to remove the trees in the
vicinity of the house and front yard, in order to reduce potential damage to the
house and to provide an area to landscape. Utilities have not been shown on the
site plan, so it is not clear if this is an area where utility lines or drainage
facilities would be placed. Grading and stump removal would be done here, as
well as for the items above.
(c) Finally, the applicant has requested to cut trees in the view shed to the southwest.
In this area he is proposing to leave the stumps and existing lower vegetation in
place.
(7) The following are staff findings:
(a) The trees on this lot are part of a grove of trees on this hill.
(b) Steve Bullock granted the applicants an exemption from the tree clearing permit
to cut dead, diseased, dying and hazardous trees on December 28, 1999 (see
Attachment 8).
(c) The applicants have spoken to their jeotechnical engineer and reported that he
has recommended removal of some of the trees on the steep slope to relieve
pressure on that slope. The engineering reports submitted to the city do not
address that issue, but do point out that all permanently exposed slopes should be
seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve
stability of the surficial layer of soil (from page 6 of Dennis Bruce's
Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendation, dated December 17,
1999). His addendum (see Attachment 7) does state that it, is geotechnically
acceptable to perform clearing and grading work in the right-of-way zone, as
well as the proposed Landsverk house footprint zones.
(d) The lot in question is large enough to be divided, but it is not clear that it has
adequate access or buildable area to be subdivided.
(e) Other city codes are relevant to this proposal. The Landscaping Requirements
chapter in section ECDC 20.12.015 gives recommended sizes for trees to be
planted.
(f) Many of the existing trees are quite large, and can provide considerable bird and
small animal habitat for resting and nesting. Many native trees also can provide
food for birds and animals. Chapter 18.45 allows for a replacement ratio of
three trees for each tree removed so long as adequate growing space is provided.
b) Conclusion: The tree clearing plan removes a large quantity of trees just in the clearing
necessary to construct the house and driveway. Cutting trees to gain a view would require
more trees to be cut, including those in the steep slope or its buffer, which is in violation
of the Critical Areas Ordinance (see section below). Tree removal should only occur in
the steep slope hazard area and its buffer that can be allowed under ECDC Section
20.15B. I I O.D. and only after the required studies or plans are reviewed and approved by
city staff. Though the Land Clearing and Tree Cutting code recommends that three trees
be replanted for one tree removed, if area is available, this is not practical on this site,
especially considering that some of the area will have impervious surfaces on it after
CUT-99-226.doc / Februaly 14, 2000 / Staff RepoTt
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 6 of 9
development. However, some replanting should be done for future habitat, and native
species should be used to improve the trees' habitat value for birds and small animals.
This should be a three -to -one ratio of trees replanted to trees cut for those areas that will
not have impervious surfaces after construction. If that is difficult to calculate, then a
one-to-one replacement ratio of trees replanted for all the trees cut on the building site
(the area shown in the hand -drawn lines around the proposed house on Attachment 3)
should be used. Trees that are shown outside those lines as not to be cut should be
protected during tree cutting and construction as directed in ECDC Section 18.45.050.H.
2. ECDC Section 20.15B (Critical Areas)
a) Facts:
(1) The subject site received a Critical Areas determination under CA-9747 which
required a critical areas study (see Attachment 5).
(2) The applicants have submitted a Geotechnical report by Dennis Bruce, dated
December 17, 1999. They have also submitted an addendum dated January 14, 2000
(see Attachment 7). In the addendum the geotechnical engineer states that he has
flagged the top of slope which surveyors should transpose onto the topographic
maps. He also states that it is geotechnically acceptable to perform clearing and
grading work in the right-of-way zone, as well as the proposed Landsverk house
footprint zones. He does not address whether it acceptable to cut trees in any other
area.
(3) The applicant has not provided a topographic survey for the subject site. A portion
of the site is shown on Attachment 3 and Attachment 6, which also shows the top of
slope. The topography shown on Attachment 6 is different than the topography
provided on Attachment 3. Neither of the maps are stamped by a licensed surveyor,
and.it is not clear why the topography is different. Therefore, it appears that the
requirement of the critical areas study to provide a topographic survey prepared by a
licensed land surveyor delineating the geologically hazardous areas on the site has
not been met.
(4) The City's Critical Areas Ordinance define a Steep Slope Hazard Area in ECDC
Section 20.15B.060.A.3.c. The steep slope hazard areas on and adjacent to this lot
are shown on the Road, Drainage and Sewer plan, Attachment 6. The steep slope is
roughly to the south of the "top of bank" line.
(5) ECDC Section 20.15B.080.A. states that "no alteration of critical areas or their
buffers shall be permitted unless the city grants an exemption or exception..."
Standards are also included for work within a critical area.
(6). Development standards for Steep Slope Hazard Areas are in ECDC 20.15B. I 10
which requires buffers for geologically hazardous areas (including steep slopes) to be
50 feet in width and maintained with their native vegetation, and where appropriate
placed within the critical areas tract. This buffer can be reduced to ten feet under
certain circumstances. Subsection D further states that no development or alteration
shall be allowed in steep slope hazard areas unless the city grants an exemption,
exception, variance, or unless it is one of the uses listed. This list includes utility
construction, provided that staff can determine that the proposed alteration shall not
subject the steep slope to the risk of landslide or erosion. Trimming or limbing of
vegetation on steep slopes may be allowed if a clearing plan is approved by city staff
and the area is not subjected to the risk of erosion.
(7) ECDC Section 20.15B. 160 allows the city to require that the critical areas on a
property be placed in a separate critical areas tract or easement. The same section
also requires that the owner of the property place a notice on the title of the property
6 CUT-99-226.doc / February 14, 2000 / Staff Report
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 7 of 9
providing notice of the presence of critical areas or buffers on the property and the
limitations from diem.
b) Conclusion: The critical areas study has not been completed adequately to entirely
determine what areas are within the steep slope hazard area. A licensed land surveyor
should provide a map showing the steep slope on the site and the required buffers.
Cutting trees within the steep slope or its buffer for the purpose of gaining a view or
providing a yard is in violation of the Critical Areas Ordinance. Tree removal should
only occur in the steep slope hazard area and its buffer that can be allowed under ECDC
Section 20.15B. I I O.D. and only after the required studies or plans are reviewed and
approved by city staff. The slope and its buffer should be placed in a critical areas tract,
and a notice of this should be added to the title for the property.
3. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.15A (Environmental Review)
a) Facts:
(1) A conditional use permit for a tree clearing permit is not categorically exempt from
SEPA review.
(2) The applicant submitted an environmental checklist, and the proposal received a
Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance (see Attachment 4). This determination
was not appealed and the deadline for appeals ended on February 4, 2000.
(3) No comments were received on this Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance
(MDNS) and Conditional Use Permit.
b) Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with the requirements of ECDC
20.15A.
C. Edmonds Comprehensive Plan Compliance
1. Land Use
a) Fact: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan designates the subject property
"Single Family" residential.
b) Conclusion: The proposed tree cutting is compatible with the single family residential
use designation.
2. Vegetation and Wildlife
a) Fact: The City of Edmonds Comprehensive Plan has some goals and policies stated in
the Land Use Element, under Vegetation and Wildlife, whichrelate to the subject.
development proposal.
(1) B. "Goal. The city should ensure that its woodlands, marshes and other areas
containing natural vegetation are preserved, in accordance with the following
policies:
B. 1. The removal of trees should be minimized particularly when they are located on
steep slopes or hazardous soils. Subdivision layouts, buildings and roads should
be designed so that existing trees are preserved.
B.3. Grading should be restricted to building pads and roads only. Vegetation outside
these areas should be preserved."
b) Conclusion: The trees on the steep slopes should be preserved unless an exception or
exemption applies or unless they create a hazard. Vegetation outside the area needed to
be cleared for the house and access should be preserved.
7 CUT-99-226.doc / February 14, 2000 / Staff Report
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 8 of 9
D. Technical Committee
1. The proposed Conditional Use Permit has been reviewed and evaluated
by other Departments/Divisions of the City.
a) Only one comment was received regarding this application and that is a memorandum
from the Engineering Division (see Attachment 9).
III. RECONSIDERATION AND APPEALS
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration's and appeals. Any
person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact the Planning Department
for further procedural information.
A. Request for Reconsideration
Section 20.95.050.B.2 allows for staff to reconsider their decision if a written request is filed
within ten (10) working days of the date of the posting of the notice of the decision.
B. Appeals
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a staff decision or recommendation shall be
made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the decision being appealed along
with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the name of the individual or group
appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and reasons why the appellant believes the
decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with the Community Development Director within
fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of the decision being appealed.
C. Time Limits for Reconsideration and Appeals
The time limits for Reconsideration's and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for a
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time "clock" for
filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed. Once the
Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time clock for filing
an appeal continued for the point it was stopped * For example, if a request is filed on day 5 of the
appeal period, an individual would have 9 more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing
Examiner issues his decision on the reconsideration request.
IV. LAPSE OF APPROVAL
Section 18.45.045.C. states "Any permit granted under the provisions of this section shall expire one year
from the date of issuance. No work may commence on the permit until the appeal time limit has expired.
Upon receipt of a written request, a permit may be extended for six months."
V. ATTACHMENTS
1 . Vicinity and Zoning Map
2. Application
3. Site Plan
4. Mitigated Determination of Nonsignificance dated January 20, 2000
5. Critical Area Determination, CA-9747
6. Portion of Road, Drainage and Sewer Plan, revision date January 25, 2000
7. Additional Geotechnical Criteria from Dennis Bruce, P.E., dated January 14, 2000
8. Memorandum from Steve Bullock, dated December 28, 1999
9. Memorandum from Gordy Hyde, dated December 21, 1999
8 CUT-99-226.doc / February 14, 2000 / Staff Report
Duane Landsverk
File No. CU-99-226
Page 9 of 9
VI. PARTIES OF RECORD
Applicant
Planning Division
Engineering Division
Sylvia Nance, Property Owner
CLJT-99-226.doc / February 14, 2000 / Staff Report
citY*f ednionds
land Use application
CI ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN BOARD
Ll COMP PLAN AMENDMENT
Ll CONDITIONAL USE PERMIT
0 HOME OCCUPATION
El FORMAL SUBDIVISION
El SHORT SUBDIVISION
C1 LOT LINE ADJUSTMENT
CI PLANNED RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
C3 OFFICIAL STREET MAP AMENDMENT
STREET VACATION
Q REZONE
0 SHORELINE PERMIT
El VARIANCE / REASONABLE USE
. . EXCEPT'Md
OTHER
FILE# ZONE
DAT
-UH REC-D BY,�, BM--L�cA(
'D
FE&*�*19 '��YRECEIPT# t A 4
HEARINGDATE
C1 HE g STAFF Q PB Li AD13 UJ CC
ACTION TAKEN:
CIAPPROVED L) DENIED U APPEALED
APPEAL#
Applicant DUO, LOM5,yo-t'l
Phone 4L)
Address
Property Address or Location—q2:�)—icitp�l-.51,,..ILAD. i E
vAa-
Property Owner Phone4251
Address ICU?)
Agent
Phone
Address
Tax Acc -I,wp. Rng.
Legal Description
Details of Project or Proposed Use
I
.-A�an -(4
The undersigned applicant, and his/ lie.,,,, its heirs, and assigns, in consideration of the processing o Fthe
application agrees to release, indemnify, defend arid hold the City of Edmonds harmless from cilly and all
damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole ):'ir' Part upon
false, misleading, inaCCUrale or imoniplete information furnished by 1he applicant, his/ tier/ i s agents or
eavloyees.
The undersigned applicant grants his/ tier/ its permission for public officials and the staff Of 1110 City of E(Irlionds to
ent.er the subject property for the purpose of inspection and posti g attendant to this application.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/ OWNER/ AGENT
ATTACHMENT 2
0 0
. LANDSVERK QUALITY HOMES, INC.
19511941h Place West, Edmonds, WA 98020
Office 425-742-2742
December 8, 1999
City of Edmonds
121 Yh Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: LAND CLEARING PERMITS FOR TAX PARCEL #'S: 1824-043-039-00-04 & 4346-000-058-0501
Regarding the land clearing permits for subject tax parcels:
TIME FRAME TO ACCOMPLISH WORK: It is our intent. to accomplish the work as soon as the
permits are issued.
EROSION CONTROL: Erosion control methods will conists of silt fence and straw bales placed
along the perimeter of the project.
TREE REMOVAL IN VIEW CORRIDOR.- We are requesting to remove select trees to open a
view corridor along the southwest comer of the property. We will be leaving stumps and all
ground vegetation in place.
If you need any further clarification of the the permit application, please call us at 425-742-2742.
Sincerfl�,
Vice President
RECEIVED
DEC 0 7 MIA
PERMIT COUNTER
. LANDSVERK QUALITY HOMES, INC.
19511941hPlace West, Edmonds, WA 98020
Office 425-742-2742
December 27,1999
City of Edmonds
Attn: Meg Gniwell
121 5dAve. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dear Meg,
RECEIVED
DEC 2 7 1999
PERMIT COUNTER
I am writing in response to your letter dated December 21, 1999 regarding my application for a special use
permit
To addnw your concerns pertaining to Edmonds Community Development Code Section 18A5.045.6:
6. Plot plan scale —I"= 50' per approval of Steve Bullock
a. topography on submitted plot plan
b. location of all existing structures, proposed structures, driveways and utilities:
All information is on submitted plot plan with the exception of the utilities. This has
been submitted to Gordy Hyde in conjunction with a right of way permit application. A
copy of which is attached.
c. Areas proposed for clearing and the proposed use for such area. The area proposed for
clearing was delineated on the submitted plan (please refer to key on plan). The proposed
use for the cleared area is the construction of a single-family residence on each lot along
with a shop, driveway, sports court and yard for the property located at 1951194" Pl.
West.
d. Designation of all diseased or damaged trees: Ibis has been addressed in a separate
permit application submitted to Steve Bullock. This permit application only pertains to
the healthy mature trees which need to be removed for the above stated purpose.
e. Any proposed grade changes: We are not proposing any grade changes that would
adversely affect or endanger trees that we will be leaving on the property.
E Designation of trees to be removed and trees to be maintained. We are applying to
remove all trees in the delineated area for the construction of the said residences and
appurtenant structum and yard areas. All other trees shall be maintained unless they &H
into the diseased, damaged or dangerous category, which has been addressed under a
sepamte permit application.
g. Designation of all wetlands, streams and environmentally sensitive areas: It is our
understanding that this entire lot has been deemed an environmentally sensitive area.
There are no wetlands or streams on either parcel. We have hired a geotechnical engineer
to prepare a report regarding the stability of the soils on these parcels a copy of which is
attached.
- . . . 9 0
The name of the person preparing the map was stamped on the bottom of the plan which is Donna L.
Breske a state of Washington professional engineer employed by Western Surveyors, Inc.
The areas that will not contain structures or driveway will be replanted with native vegetation (including
but not limited to rhododendrons, azaleas, ivy and cedars) along with grass for a lawn and other common
landscaping plants used in this region. We would anticipate replanting as soon as the construction of the
residences has progressed enough so as to insure that the replanted areas would not be damaged. Our
anticipated construction schedule is to be 5 — 7 months from the date the building permit is issued.
I hope this adequately addresses the issues pertaining to this application. We appreciate your efforts to
expedite this application and request that you call us at the number above if you need any further
information. We are anxious to have this work completed as soon as possible to limit the disturbance to the
wildlife that lives in the area and the many birds that will be arriving in the spring to build their n
It is our understanding from talking to officials from the department of Fish and Wildlife that Janu .. ary and
February are the best months to disturb these areas to cause as little disruption as possible to the wildlife.
We hope for continued co-operation from the City of Edmonds in accomplishing this task.
Sincerely,
Duane Landsverk
Ant l.r. k rvvry rlr-t)
rip-\
kIng FOUND MONUMENTITA&
A A I
G-4 GROUP 4 r .....
V
(P) DEED I 1�
CEN7ERUNE v
PROPERTY UNE 84'00 3601 E
N 30 00 ECYE-IDARS (7R
A
76' (TYP)
STORM CArCH BASIN I It D I 1 10, 11 48'
509.23
0 D STORM DR411V MANHOLE IOR PLA
SANITARY SWRMANHOLE EXCELS co SHOP
q3 ---- 20p
POWR Po I
LOT1
GUY POLE e 143,088 SF 28
CLEARING
ow WATER MErtR %\ LIAI17S (TYP)
WATER VAL Vr PROPOSED
w I 17ROPOSED SFR
V FIRE HYDR4Nr SPORTS
66' COURT FF ELEV CIN.
GAS LINE cps -,a!,
w WA TER UNt
—P— POKER
SS SEWR LIN
PA 40' 50.9,
Ago
CLEARING LIMITS I
------------
(TR) TO REMAIN
30, �Ccrss ; U77UTY EASEMiNTS ---------------
A.F NC -.Si 8108290222 & 8906200263 ----------------------- ------------------
----- ------------- -----------------------------
PAIR""
2 9)
A .275 ------- -------------
.3 2
49* 60
SEE DETAIL A:
309.79
NB-Q'39'04"E
R�.359. 26
250
%
524
275-- S,
%
40-AC U77UTY EASEMENTS"', N3344453"Yv %
.30,
NASK42 14 & 1867165 20.00
AX
t NZ - -
------ �N=14'52'56p GRADING, DRAINAGE & TESC
ROAD.,
e-*% -
R-360,28
L-93.58
120-42 131
----..0
M89-12'46"W
1-1000' NE LANDS VERK 0--
1101, i-A
100'
-------- - — - - N89'12'46"W f298.91 110
25 '00�
20.99
NOO '39 *36 T NE �14.. NE 114, SEC. 7. T. 2 7N, R. 4E, W. M.
804 0. DWV. BY DATE REV. BY DATE PROJECT MANAGER SCALE
f4. R-360-28
L-5.41 .000 UAIJ i I In -t line
EXIS77MG 2-112- BRASS CAP
SURFACE MONUMENT
LAST WSITED: 11190
ATTACHMENT 3
1 #MN8 1109199
D. L. BRESKE
1 - 50
DRA%lNG FILENAME
F. B. No.
CHK. BY
JOB NO.
T. NO.
900 77ENG. D WC
NIA
DO
90-077-C
1 of 1.
t --
0* ED ko
04i
CrrY OF EDMONDS
121 ME AVENUE NORTH @ EDMONDS - WA 98020 - (425) 771-0
http://www.cLedmonds.wa.us
RCW 197-11-970 Determination of Nonsignificance (DNS)
NHTIGATED DETERNHNATION OF NONSIGNIFICANCE
Description of proposal: Clearing for and construction of a single family residence and associated utilities and
access improvements (File CU-99-226).
Proponent: Duane Landsverk for Sylvia Nance
Location of proposal, Including street address if any: 9123 — 196h Street SW, Edmonds WA
Lead agency: CITY OF EDMONDS
The lead agency for this proposal has determined that it does not have a probable significant adverse impact on the
environment. An environmental impact statement is not required under RCW 43.21.030(2)(c). This decision was
made after review of a completed environmental checklist and other information on file with the lead agency. This
information is available to the public on request.
— There is no comment period for this DNS.
x This DNS is issued under 197-11-340(2); the lead agency will not act on this proposal for 14. days from
the date below. Comments must be submitted by .2000.
Responsible Official: Jeffrey S. Wilson
Position/Title: Senior Planner
Phone� (425) 771-0220
Address: City of Edmonds
121 - 5th Avenue North
Edmonds, WA 98020
Date: i I asr(cq
f I ..
) Z:P��
xx You may appeal this determination to Robert jChavej Planning Manager, at 121 5th Avenue North,
Edmonds, WA 98020, no later than 4 2000, by filing a written appeal citing the
specific factual reasons for the appeal. The aj3peal submittal must also include the required fees and
mailing list. Please contact the Planning Division for specific submittal requirements.
xx Posted on Qj _,20 . 00, at the Edmonds Public Library, Edmonds Community Services
Building, and the Eftonds Post Office.
xx Distribute to "Checked" Agencies on the reverse side of this form, along with a copyof the Checklist
ATTACHMENT 4
WnGATENEWLDOC Page I of2
CUATEDON017W10:18AM
Mailed to the following along with the Environmental Checklist:
E
XX Environmental Review Section
Department of Ecology
P.O. Box 47703
Olympia, WA 98504-7703
xx Department of Wildlife
16018 Mill Creek Boulevard
Mill Creek, WA 98012
Washington State Dept. of Transportation
TSM&P/Land Developer
15700 Dayton Avenue North
Seattle, WA 98133
XX National Marine Fisheries Service
Attn.: Steve Landino
WA. State Habitat Branch Chief
5 10 Desmond Drive SE
Lacey, WA 98503
XX Applicant: Duane Landsverk
19511 - 94th Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98020.
XX Owner. Sylvia Nance
19518 - 944'Place W.
Edmonds, WA 98020
xx — MITIGATING MEASURES INCORPORATED INTO THE PROPOSAL:
1. Erosion control plan shall be approved prior to trees being cut.
2. Within the steep slope hazard area and its buffer, no removal of trees shall be allowed,
unless they are a danger to life or property or substantial fire hazard as judged by city
staff or an International Society of Arboriculture certified arborist.
3. The cedar trees and other areas shown on the plans not to be cleared, and any area the
tree cutting permit requires to be protected, shall be protected by temporary fencing and
other measures during construction, per the requirements in Edmonds Community
Development Code Section 18.45.050.H.
Attachments
pc: File No. CU-99-226
SEPA Notebook
Pap 2 of 2
MMGATENEW2.DOC
CREATED ON OVMW WAS AM
0
CA FILE No.
Critical Areas Checklist
--------------------------------------------------------------
Site Inf ormation.(soils/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: 91OL5 R& 1P -Ej- , :6 L.;)
2. Property Tax Account Number: IV Q S — OS'�- - 00
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet). 0&0 00 0
es k,
4. Is this site currently developed? — y no.
if yes, how is site developed?
5. Describe the general si te topography. Check all that apply.
Flat- less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15 % (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15 % 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. Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway' floodplain_ of a water course.
9. Site contains a Friek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are
year-round? to Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs n-dxed
urban landscaped (lawnshrubs etc)'
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
M� C., tjWWA
Apip jcaes..
.. ........ .
iii&l de zar
a,
W-1
1 es�gm
-4.
W
le"y"iew"e'd by,
Z
7:
A
Aca_chk.dcc; Rev 02/11/97
City of Edmonds
dtkal Areas Check'!]'-1-$'t.,.-..
'4C. IS9,1
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 observationi of the site or data
available at City Hall (Critical Areas
inventories, maps, or soil surveys).
An applicant, or his/her representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date
it, and submit it to the City. The City
will review the checklist, make a
precursorysite visit, and make a
determination of the subsequent steps
necessary to complete a development
permit application.
With a signed copy of this form, the
applicant should also submit a vicinity
map. or plot plan for individual lots of
the parcel with enough detail that City
staff can find and identify the subject
parcel(s). In addition, the applicant
shall include other pertinent
information (e.g. site plan, topography
map, etc.) or studies in conjunction
with this Checklist to assist staff in
completing their preliminary
assessment of the site.
I have completed the attached Critical Area Checklist and attest that the answers
provided are factual,. to the best Of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate colurnn
below).
Owner/ Applicant:
Name
Street Address
City, State, ZIP Phone
Signature . . I Date
Applicant Repregentative:
Name
o)41'%P poy 94
Street Address
City, State, ZEP 41014 7 710101
Phone
Signature
Date
L:
0
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: I Nance I Determination #: I CA-97-47
Project N ame: Permit Number:
Site Location: 1 9123 196th St. SW Property Tax Acct #: 1 182704-3-03'9-00
Project Description:
Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required
The purpose of this study would be to identify the location and type of the slope and the required
buffers and setbacks. The slope appears to be a Steep Slope Hazard Area. This would need to be
confirined with a Geotechnical study. If it is a Steep Slope Hazard Area, a buffer of 50 feet is
required from the top of the bank/slope and a 15 building setback from the edge of the buffer.
The Geote.chnical study may recommend a modification of the 50 buffer down to 10 feet.
If an applicant feels that their development proposal will not effect the Critical Area in any way,
they may request a Conditional Waiver from the requirement to prepare a Study.
Conditional Waiver Criteria must be reviewed on.a project by project basis and all criteria must
be found to apply -
I . There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers;
2. 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;
3. The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas
ordinance;
4. The above findings are based. on the following conditions of approval:
a.)
SteRhen Bullock
April 2. 1997
Name Sig ture Date
0
City of Edmonds
Conditional Waiver
Determination M CA-97-47
Applicant: I Nance Property I I
Project Name: I Lot Line Adjustment Permit Number:
Property Tax Acct. #: 182704-3-039-00
Site Location: 1 9123 196th St S W
Project Description:
A Lot Line Adjustment between the Nance and Vinyard properties.
Waiver Criteria (all criteria must be found to apply):
XXX There will be no alteration of the Critical Area or its required buffers;
XXX 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;
XXX The development proposal meets the minimum standards of the Critical Areas
ordinance;
XXX The above findings are based on the following conditions of approval:
1. This conditional waiver is granted for the sole purpose of completing a Lot
Line Adjustment. Any other proposals must either provide a study or be
granted a conditional waiver.
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 Community Develop t Code.
Steve Bullock
April 1. 1997
Name Signature Date
0, 1 jr �A % Q
r r
; " v L;
INLET al
7'OP=290.0 FA
Jr- 'ji2f) A tv 1'r
..r. r A
A
r A %
v
v STA. 6+9
MAINTAIN A MIN. 70' SEPARA71ON 4' RT
BETKEN PROPERTY LINE & AREA OF NEW PAVEMENT
EDGE OF INFURAPON 7RENCH EXCELSIOR PLACE FTp rcoll
11 STA 7+9J.8J
iss INLETT2 LA 4, kT
83 TOP=JO9.7
4' RT IE=JO& 0 OUT I 1NnL'fRA TION TRENCH JJ
aou'- ZY WDE
r
-------------- Ld
1?B
PLACE
�'O�EXCELSJOR _7
jol EX.
10,
0 C ARS (TR)
5 10,
3B 30#
TH LF�6' PVC
E=JOZ35 0 Lox MIN
-6' PIPE %
I 13OLF SHOP
STH %
10 1.0Z MIN FF-j'5 20'
SEC DRAINAGE N07F BELOW 55011
EL=309.76-
FOR ALLOWABLE PIPE MATERIAL I I
% I I co 28' (N
INFIL 7RA W
5q I'lilill 12 IF
AN� A 1-41%
BA4-SSMH 162T - of L5,
TOP=267.9 1, "1 Lor 1 1%
PROPOSED CBivl TWE-1 143,088 IF.
IE(W).=263.04 oe INFIL 7RA 71WON 7? 11 qoposED SFR 1 ---- %% 1
92LF - J.5' WD 70P=311 FA %
I Vi GTH /E=JOZJ5 OUT 'QTHL
SPORTS FF ELEV,
MAINTAIN A MIN. 10' SEPARA77ON T 300
BETKEEN PROPERTY LINES & FF 98 CONNECT DIRECZY TO
At r i OTH INFILTRA71ON TRENCH PIPE
EDGE OF 1NnL IRA 77ON TRENCHES
MAINTAIN A MIN. 6' SEPARA77ON 0 -----------------
co 1� I
co qE7yrEN iNnL 7RA 77oN 7RENcHEs 56", JLAI
ROCKERY
1.74 -300, ,
"Z
TH EL=306.96, --------- 295---
ILITY EASEMENTS
30' ACCESS & UT -290- - -
A. F. NO.'S 8408290222 & 8-90620026.3
MAILBOX
AND
ST
co
% % - -280 ---------------
----------
% —2.75 —
---- 270---49* 36'
'SEE WAIL"%A % 03
27----- 7-
-.,J09.79 --2651-
N89*39'04"E ---------------
260
% -----255 ------------ R-359-26
% % ',,GTH
CB -TYPE N, 250—
TOP=246.28 "\ 11, %-
'1 1,
Z� %
(SW)=243.18 '44 W:�, 524
I % %" �::-" so
/00,
40' ACCESS & U77LITY EASEMENTS
0:60:'�
14 '5256
NO.'S 1423034 & 186 7165�
1 U)
Z�l R=360.28 ROAD
DRAINAGE & SEXER PLAN
:,!�L=93.58, 10
Nat - , . I 1 11 clq
IN I I
9
-----------
so
2.49 D UA NE L MD S VERK
120.'42 -
13
-------- N89-12
N, SE 114, SE 114, SEC-13, T.27N., R.3E, W.M.
--7 DWN. BY DATE REV BY DA TE PROJECT MANAGER SCALE -
------ N89-12 46"W 1298-91 MAH 11103199 j MN9 01125100 D.L. BRESKE 1- = 50
- 24
'-N�% 20.99 DRA WNG FILENAME F. 8. NO. CHK. B Y JOB No. SH T. No.
A n
A NOO*39'36"E TTACHMENT 6 Q nn 7 7FNr. 9. n im. tv /A 7ni a on-n77-r I n? A
k
rIKU11 w.nrucet r-.r-. ansineer rMUNC NU. . ek= D40 Z44e P-eb. lic eum iu;DeHn ri
4
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geolechnical/ Civil Engineer'
January 14, 2000
Cityof Edmonds — M561 GROWt-LL, �ILAWN*VP- - VIN P:P(
c/o Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc. A?.S- 711 - o�Li%
19511 - 94th Place West .
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Duane Landsverk, President
Subject: Additional Geotechnical Criteria
Proposed Two New Single Family Residences
Lots - No. I a nd 2, 19518 - 94th - P1 ace West
Edmonds, Washington
December 17, 1999 geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendation
report by D. Bruce, P.E.
. Based on the encountered relatively clean, sandy soils, and extensive site
vegetation, it is geotechnically acceptable to perform clearing and grading work in
the right-of-way zone, as well as the proposed Landsverk house footprint zones.
This work could occur during the Winter and spring rainy sea -sons, subject to
compliance with City of Edmonds permit requirements.
Normal siltation and erosion control measures (siltati on fencing, hay bales, etc.)
are geotechnically approved for rainy season grading work. These erosion control -
measures are subject to proper installation and ongoing maintenance, and inspection
by this engineer, as well as City of Edmonds inspectors.
This engineer installed flagging along the geotechnical tOp-of-slope "breako
line. It is recommended that surveyors define this line and transpose it onto the
existing topographic maps.
P ,
ATTACHMENT 7
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 54"442
FROM : D. Bruce, P. E. Engineer
ft 6 . *
PHONE NO. : 206 546 6442 �eb. lid ?-UUld 1W:�ZHFI t-e
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Pagetwo
This "top -of -slope" line should be referenced with regard to this engineer's
recommended set back distances.
If there are any questIons, do not hesitate to call.
5 M..&
of WASM
ACV
.000
3L
417405
ON L
I ExpiRF-9 IV23/ "001A
DMB:vlb
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
0 . 0
Date:
To:
From:
MEMORANDUM
December 28,1999
Street File 1951190 Pl. W and 9123 196th St. SW
Steve Bullock 4-N 5'
Senior Planner
Subject: TREE CLEARING PERMrr EXEMPTION FOR MAWTENANCE OF A
wbODED PROPERTY BY REMOVING DEAD, DISEASED, DYING
AND HAZARDOUS TREES.
Currently these two properties are undeveloped and covered with trees.. Both properties are
identified as Environmentally Sensitive Areas which requires a Clearing Pe I rmit to be obtained for
any tree removal unless that removal meets an exemption as defined in ECDC 18.45.030.
Both properties will be developed with single farrdly homes and in anticipation of this, Clearing
Permits have been applied for. After walking the property, it became evident that while there are
many good quality trees on the site, there are also many poor quality trees. These trees can cause
potential harm to the good trees by falling and breaking healthy trees or blowing over and ripping
out rootballs and destabilizing the slopes.
In an effort to assist the City in our review of the clearing permit application and to make sure that
as many good trees remain on the site as possible I am granting an exemption for the removal of all
dead, diseased, dying and hazardous trees from the site. I have walked the site and the applicant
has submitted photographs which indicate the condition of the trees in question.
Generally, evergreen trees with no leaves are dead and permitted to be removed under this
exemption. Any tree with obvious scars, broken tops and other structural problems is a potential
hazard and eligible to be removed under this exemption. This exemption applies only to the
cutting down of the tree. All stumps and rootballs will be left in tact and removal of specific
stumps can be addressed as part of the Clearing Permit.
This exemption is granted with the intent that more good quality trees will be saved on these
properties preserving their character while still allowing compatible development.
Attachments: Photographs
City of Edmonds cQ Planning Division ATTACHMENT 8
93172LXUX
12W".
MEMORANDUM
Date: December 21, 1999
To: Planning Division
From: Gordy Hyde, Development Services Engineer
Subject: Conditional Use for Landsverk at 9123 — 19e St. S.W.(CU-99-226)
The Engineering Division reviewed the submittal. The. City Engineer must approve the
applicant's erosion control plan prior to construction approval. The applicant must comply with.
all future permits. The application is now complete.
City of Edmonds ATTACHMENT 9
Development Services Department
Western
Engineers 13000 Highway 99 South Everett, Washington 98204
Inc. (425) 356-2700 FAX (425) 356-2708
SURVEYORS* PLANNERS- ENGINEERS
DRAINAGE REPORT
FOR:
DUANE LANDSVERK
DATE: JANUARY 26,2000
REVISED: MAY 1, 2000
SITE: 196T" PLACE WEST
/0 EDMONDS, WA 98020
(EXCELSIOR PLACE)
PREPARED BY:
DONNA L. BRESKE, PE.
27 7
00
ni/s/2001
CLIENT: DUANE LANDSVERK
230 174' ST. S.W.
BOTHELL, WA 98012
PHONE: (425) 754-2069
RF- -
DEvELOPM,
CITY OF
AMY a
WESTERN SURVEYORS, INC.
JOB NO. 90-077-C
LAND USE CONSULTANTS e CIVIL ENGINEERS a LAND SURVEYORS e ENGINEERING CORPORATION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PROJECT DESIGN AND DISCUSSION 1-2
VICINITY MAP 3
INFILTRATION CALCULATIONS 4-6
PRE -DEVELOPED BASIN MAP 7
100 YR,24 HR. ISOPLUVIAL 8
SOIL INFORMATION 9-10
INFILTRATION SYSTEM CONSTRUCTION DRAWING I I
INFILTRATION SYSTEM DESIGN CRITERIA 12-13
INSTALLATION & OWNER MAINTENANCE MANUAL 14
GEOTECHNICAL REPORT DATED 12-17-00 ATTACHED TO END OF REPORT
INFILTRATION TRENCH DESIGN
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AND EXCELSIOR WAY PAVEMENT
FOR DUANE LANDSVERK
REVISION 1, MAY 1, 2000
This revision to the Drainage Report is prepared in response to review comments
received from the City of Edmonds via a letter dated March 31, 2000.
PROJECT AND DESIGN DISCUSSION:
A house, shop, and sports court are proposed to be constructed on a 3.25 Ac. +/- parcel
of land located at 196b Place and Excelsior Place. The parcel is located within Section 13,
Township 27, and Range 3.
COMMENTS REGARDING GEOTEC REPORT AND INFILTRATION RATES:
A geotechnical investigation of the site revealed the soils to be comprised of sandy
soils. The results of the investigation are included in the Geotechnical Report dated
December 17, 1999 by Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. A copy of this Geotech Report is attached to
this Revised Drainage Report for reference.
Several test holes were dug on the site. The geotechnical engineer recommends using
a maximum infiltration rate of thirteen inches (13 ") per hour for the storm water infiltration
system. A narrative of the infiltration rate testing method used by the Geotech Engineer is
included on Page 8 of his report.
SIZING OF TRENCHES AND IMPACIS OF INFILTRATION QN STEEP SLOPES
The infiltration trenches are sized in accordance with the King County Surface Water
Design Manual, The trenches are sized to infiltrate the flows from the I 00-year storm event.
A map is included within this report which delineates impervious surfaces and the
respective infiltration trenches to which runoff will be routed.
All trenches are located no less than 50 feet from the top of steep slopes. In
accordance with the King County Surface Water Design Manual Section 4.5, 1, Design
Criteria, "All trenches shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slopes (as defined by the
Sensitive Areas Ordinance and Rules). This setback may be reduces to 15 feet based on a
geotechnical engineer report but in no instances less than the buffer width." The authors of
the King County Manual define a 50' buffer, as that required to provide an infiltration design
which will not cause adverse impacts to any steep slopes. A casual observance of the King
County design criteria by any prudent engineer would conclude that the 50' buffer is
conservative. This can be ascertained by the fact that the buffer can be reduced to as little as
15' based upon a detailed geotechnical analysis, Since, this engineer chooses to utilize the
conservative 50' buffer as specified in the King County Design Manual it is unnecessary to
analyze impacts to the steep slope, other than there will be none by virtue of the 50 buffer
which is being utilized.
PHOTO TAKEN FROM THE 1998 THOMAS GUIDE CD-ROM
WESTERN SURVEYORS
13000 HWY 99 SOUTH
EVER ETT, WA 98204
(425) 356-2700 .
(425) 356-2708 FAX
SITE:
DUANE LANDSVERK.
196 TI , PLACE WEST
EDMONDS, WA
Date: December 20, 1999
Drawn By: BRK
File Name: mapbase.doc
3
D 07 7-c
rL
E
0
L.0
Ln
Z LLJ
cQ I c (.� (c(fe, I m PerWous
InF-, ltriafi6ij T�-eriche5
Loop Drivewoj
shop
A-rea be liriAral-ed in
drivewo ( 407 SF
b the eas+: qof 5F
E3,371 5F
Cal,rutate. Impervi'ou,-- 1�rea to be /nrllf-rofa.� ;o
0
111h'It-r-"fion 20
v o u
Vle LAJ 0
V) cq r, - y
Simile Forolty I
Res'do. nre
Wolkvooys b 0e. hoose-
Trench ELos�qn
tksi.o3 -roble 4-. G-. 1, A oC
Water Ges�qvi Pbtlual
100 - Year
, 2a h r
qO,5- sp�
1:20
2 450 S,
0 12-7 s* F
K('nq COUM3 Sur.rqce
Geofer,, RPor+ 4q.f)e4 12-1-7-q7
r
ctrl� PirelpOy"'ed D�Ilr)ls M # Bructo P Ej
IrAP C 0 W1 MeYO4 lAr"Itnifiorl
oi�, 13,nIhs, Ir 0,21-7 '^/m;n
A 2=
222 SF
P 10,
3. 0 -
8 371 SF
I
m .2)-7'Vr,,in.
t '� -Vinv *P = io r
A2 = &,14)(?)
�=(O.OSIPA) �1:,,
2 =31l�
[(,054)(.3)(35,57)] (lo)(.2-1*7) =2&5ft
4 -4 -3)(a3l/)7 (0)C21-7)z &26(tz
.3.5' wi'de Tr'e/l ch 55
Cin i A 11'k retf io n per; me�er- 3.5
to S. s
2-&5- J-6 LF 62
5's
L �2(0 - I LF
.324
5F
-C) ti A N. ti
m PERVIOU5
mffy
MW7
4'RT JE=J06.0 OUT
STA. 3+&3.81
,op=
F--289-0 OUT
----------
4-00#36" E
-lE
I
a! rTH
00
N's
LAND3VERK
AREA m AP
11 2000
EDGE OF lNFX7RA710N 7RENCH
INRL77?A77ON 7RENCH JJ
5?LF - J.5' WDE
90* BEND W1 771RUST BLOCK
NEW FH ASSEMBLY
STA 3+561g—
STr7+93.83
4' RT
Q)
---------------
,—F of-r- 4b 4%
3
,.i LOj �bARS (TR)
10 (TYP)
FF�=315-
04 SF '20
'!-c
p
C'4
I INHL IRA 77qy 7RENCH 14
SpORTS 57LF — 3.5
COURT
FF=298 fdAWTAIN A MIN. 6' SEPARA770N�'-
Z40o SF BF —
An'
4
LOT 1
14J,088 S.F N
C'4
50' TOP OF
,\BANK SEMA CK
50.9' -;O;e T)PE- I
RY Mill FA
ROOKERY N, --EL=JIL74 L
N- -- EL=306.9,6 - - 10001-- - /E=30Z 75 OUT
100�1- IMF,,-T"T(lDN TRF-NCH
35 SF
.57 -
-MENCH lf:z
INFILTeATION
iS-70 5F-
01
I NP RATIO N TRN7NCIf ES
25
M
w
Lm
-77 — C Illr-qatfioyl
Quane Lwidsve,(k '�O - 0
cqlc :51"Re or 'rrcomc h eec(led -fa mr"ll-raf-e-
�u yi V- osed -ld 51 r Ly '0
f�om �hp ce ts t' r
,,e- r)o(,I,h Or- Forx "A vc
nreq 55-oo 5F
7S- LF
LO
Cp
6 c
z
I
Da-C,N( MAP
p R F - v E-,v EL -op Ev prl.>
-,m V,
- - - - - - T-- LOT
41,642S.
PLACE
SIOR .............
a? V"T ExCEL
ER VALVE
hITRW
IIGIIVAL
_GF,
eyH",
LOT LINE
ADJJSTED
LOT 1
LOTLWE
144088 F.
-2UOI:
IE
TYPE I low N
V-)2 882.
.,W.E
% WH Y'o7aT'
10, -------
t Jug..
ol
30' ACCESS 1.17n7 Ts
Q� ---------
ALF NO.'S 840a 8"2002&3 -290 --------
MM2001
--265
CB-TYPE I
.00, ,oF 80 --------------------- '4-0132'
R-369.2
cf L-ICL48
IE (.';)-251.0.9 1 BLOM?
�M79` r ------------
255 -----------
l2am
44
)V. 524
cova M... IN(ft 1,; V, C:,:, S.
'2' BRASS Of
-40'ACCESS & U77U
Tr
/�LF. Ma'S 142,30.N & 18671651�
----------
CB TYPE I ---
7UP-246. R�36a INI
113BIW 242 ------ W
'9
1.35 JE � Z
_�NV62; 49
E V-, 241.09--
A -------
M897246-
ins
129&91 44 is
YG CASED COVC. MON 44
..........
STORXWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE'PUGET SOUND BASIN
124
HAil
;:3.
H k
fAl A R -�'C' *
po
poR SIANL
Wn
48 J�\,
7 7i ,
so
0
90\1
1 OM
loo
YYAZMNLi IUN I �o
10 o 10 20
30 40
MILES 40
Figure 30
ISOPLUVIALS F 100-YR 24-HR PRECIPIT�
H TION
IN TENTHS OF N LINCH
124 123
111-1-46
col off co at HYdtololy
SO,, Cod 'o' U-S- D#P4rt"wnf'o( A ,
noqrvsj�on 54fv,C@, icufturo,
Emllnoor �j Diviskon
122 - -------------
12i
0
SITE
I
SUIL L;UNZ)tXVAIIUN btHVI(;E
SNOHOMISH COU]
SOIL LEGEND
SYMBOL
NAME
2
Alderwood 'r
g avelly sandy loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
3
Alderwood gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 Percen t slopes
vv
Alder cod gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 Percent slopes
4
>
6
Alder wood- Everett gravelly sandy loams, 25 to 70 Percent slopes
Aid e rwood- Urban land complex, 2 to 8
6
7
percent slopes
Alderwood-Urban land complex, a to IS Percent slopes
Bellingham silty Clay loam
8
Bellingham Variant mucky silty clay loam
9
Cathcart loam, 3 to 15 Percent slopes
10
11
Cathcart loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Cathcart loam, 26 to 50 Percent slopes
12
Cryohemists, nearly level
13
Custer fine sandy loam
14
Elwell silt loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
15
16
Elyvell-Olomount complex, 15 to 30 Percent slopes
17
Elwell-Olomount-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 60 Percent slopes
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 0 to 8 Percent slopes
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 8 to 15 Percent slopes
19
20
Everett gravelly sandy loam, 15 to 25 percent slopes
Fluvaquents, tidal
21
Getchell silt loam, 3 to 30 Percent slopes
22
Getchell-Oso complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
23
24
Getchell-050-Rock outcrop Complex, 30 to 65 Percent slopes
Greehwater loamy sand
25
26
Harinit-Potchub.Rock outcrop complex, 65 to go Percent slopes
Indianola loamy tend, 15 to 25 percent slopes
27
Kitsap silt loam 0 to 8 Percent slopes
28
Kitsap silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes
29
Kitsap silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
30.
Lynnwood loamy sand, 0 to 3 Percent slopes
31
32
Lynnwood-Nargar complex, 65 to 90 percent slopes
33
McKenna gravelly silt loam, 0 to 8 Percent slopes
Menzel silt loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
34
Mukilteo muck
35
Nargar fine sandy loam, 0 to 15 percent slopes
36
Nargar fine sandy loam, 15 to 30 percent slopes
37
38
Nargar-Lynnwood complex, 30 to 66 percent slopes
39
Nargar Variant sandy loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
40
Norms loam
Norma Variant loam
41
42
0garty-To ku I- Rock Outcrop complex, 65 to 90 Percent slopes
010mount gravelly loam, 3 to IS percent slopes
43
44
.
Olomount-Elweli-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 Percent slopes
Orcas peat
45
Oso gravelly loam, 3 to 15 percent slopes
46
47
Oso-Getchell-Rock outcrop complex, 65 to 90 pelcent slopes
48
Pastik silt loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
Pastik silt loam, 8 to 25 percent slopes
49
Pastik silt loam, 25 to 50 percent slopes
50
Pilchuck loamy land
51
Pits
62
Potchub silt loam, 3 to 30 Percent slopes.
53
54
Potchub-Hartnit complex, 15 to 30 percent slopes
Potchub-Hartnit-Rock outcrop complex, 30 to 65 Percent slopes
55
Puget silty clay loam
56
Puyallup fine sandy loam
57
58
Ragnar fine sandy loam, 0 to 8 Percent slopes
.
59
Ragnar fine
. sandy loam, 8 to 15 Percent slopes
60
Rive rwash
Haber silt loam, 0 to 15 Percent slopes
61
62
Haber silt loam, 15 to 30 Percent slopes
63
Haber silt loam, 30 to 65 percent slopes
64
Skykomish gravelly loam, 0 to 30 percent slopes
65
Snohomish silt loam
66
Sulsavar gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
67
Sultan silt loam
Sultan Variant silt loam
68
69
Sumas silt loam .
70
Terric Medisaprists, nearly ley el
71
Tokul silt loam, 2 to 8 percent slopes
72
Tokul silt loam, a to 15 percent slopes
73
Tokul gravelly loam, 0 to 8 percent slopes
74
Tokul gravelly loam, 8 to 15 percent slopes
75
Tokul gravelly loam, 16 to 25 percent slopes
76
Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 0 to 25 percent slopes
Tokul-Ogarty-Rock outcrop complex, 25 to 65
77
78
percent slopes
Tokul-Winston gravelly loams, 25 to 65 percent slopes
79
80
Urbanland
Verlot mucky silt loam, 3 to 25 Percent slopes
81
Winston gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes
82
Winston gravelly loam, 3 to 30 percent slopes
Xerorthents, nearly level
91
W
1123TOW1,21MUMMIlb VANN Amu
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
FIGURE 4.5.1A ROOF DOWNSPOU'pINFILTRATION SYS'1'1,'ms - ------------
----------
FPzo5 -f=
. 1 -1
VI)
V& U)
;5p
I'W K
w4t"
U/1 V10-
Pve- ptpe-
p e—
Wo �, +rc A ck
e'4 ve(q
Wa��a VO4< /4,(-11/"
+d�e v'�a � rile�-
3, 5'
4.5.1-3
1/90
K I N G COUNTY, W IJINGTON, SURFACE WA ER DESIGN
MANUAL
o Filter fabric shall be wrapped entirely around trench drain rock prior to backfilling,
Method of AnalYsis./Length of Roof Downspout Infiltration Trenches
The length of trench required is based on the assumption of providing a bottom trench area sized to
infiltrate ata rate equal to the rainfall intensity for the peak 10-minute time step for the 10-year, 24-
hour duration design storm event (Time step 460 to 470 minutes, 5.4% Of total storm volume P10,
see Table 3-5.1A), and by the maximum Infiltration rate (1m) which Is based on the Soil Texture Class
by the United States Department of Agri cultu re ( U.S.D.A.) designation system (see Figure 4.5.1B and
Table 4.5.1A). The length of trench required is determined by dividing the required infiltration area
(A,) by 4 feet (the two -foot trench width Plus one foot on either side for side wall infiltration). A, is
computed using the following equation:
A�
(0.054 PIOAF,)/t Im
Where:
Pio = 10-Year, 24-hour design storm total precipitation, inches (from Figure 3.5. 1 E)
t = time step: 10 minutes.
Im the maximum infiltration rate from Table 4.5.1A, inch/min.
An area of the roof tributary to the system, W. (Note: a typiCal Single-family residence has -a
roof area of approximately 2,000 ft'.)
Therefore, the trench length required is:
L (Al/4 (feet); in feet
TABLE 4.5.1 A MAXIMUM INFILTRATION RATES FOR RESIDENTIAL.
ROOF DOWNSPOUT
INF LTRATION RATES
Soil Texture Class (U.S,D.A.)
Maximum h1filtration Rates"
(Inches per Hour)
(inches Per Minute)
1 Coarse saids or Cobbles
2. Medium sand
20.00
8,27
0.333
.
use,
3. Fine sand, loam sand
2,41
0 138
13 ill/hir
4. Sandy loam,
1.02
O�040
r Geef,%
5 ------ Loam
0.52
0.017
�for+"
o.nnq
*From a study of over 5,000 soil samples under carefully controlled procedures by the U.S.
(Rawls, Brakensick and Saxton, 1982), D. A.
datfill
Deco ill 111q
Ex I ample: Proposed residence located at Kent -East Hill
Roof area (A . R) = 2,000 square feet; So . il Texture Class = loamy sand;
Im = 0.040 inches per minute; Pio..= 2.9 in . ches; t = 10. minutes
�A, = (0-054 P,OA,)/t I
m ((0.054)(2.9)(2,OC)O))/((10)(0.040)) = 783 ft-'
K A1/4 = (783)/(4) -f-e e—
L (Note: could be accomplished by two trenchs).
4.5.1-2
12,
KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON, SURFACE WATER DESIGN MANUAL
4.5 INFILTRATION SYSTEM ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
The analysis and design of infiltration systems are defined, and requirements regarding their design
and use contained in Section 1.2.3. The specific requirements for the analysis and design of
infiltration systems are dependent upon the type of facility. There are three types of infiltration
systems allowed for use in King County: Roof Downspout Systems, Infiltration Tanks, and Infiltration
Ponds.
4.5.1 ROOF DOWNSPOUT INFILTRATION SYSTEMS
Roof downspout infiltration systems are infiltration trench systems intended only for use in infiltrating
runoff from roof downspout drains. They are not designed to directly infiltrate any surface water that
could transport sediment or pollutants such as from paved areas.
Limitations
o A single roof downspout system can serve up to 5,000 square feet of roof area (A, described
below).
o Not allowed on slopes greater than 25% (4:1).
o Not allowed in fill materials, must be native soil.
o Limited for use only in the SCS soils described in Section 1.2.3.
Design Criteria
o See Figure 4.5.1 A for details.
o A soils report must be prepared which demonstrates compliance with the requirements in Section
1.2.3, and 1.3.12.
o A minimum of one soils log, minimum 4 feet in depth, that describes the SCS series of the soil,
the textural class of the soil horizon through the depth of the log, and notes any evidence of high
groundwater level, such as mottling, shall be obtained for each proposed roof downspout system
location. Note, trench bottoms must be a minimum of 1 foot above seasonal high ground water
level.
o Trenches may be located under pavement provided that a small yard drain/catch basin with a
grate cover is placed at the end of the trench pipe,such that if the trench infiltration, capacity is
exceeded, the overflow would occur out of the catch basin at an elevation of at least one foot
below that of any overlying pavement, and in a location which can accommodate the overflow
and meet the requirements of Section 1.2.1.
o Minimum spacing between trench center lines shall be 6 feet.
o All trenches shall be a minimum of 10 feet from any structure, property line, Native Growth
Protection Easement, Sensitive Area fract, Sensitive Area Setback Area, and 30 feet down slope
from any septic tank/drain field (not allowed upslope within 100 feet). A trench can be located
within 10 feet downslope of a structure foundation. Plot plan must show location of all of these
features.
o All trenches shall be a minimum of 50 feet from any steep slope (as defined by the Sensitive
Areas Ordinance and Rules). This setback may be reduced to 15 feet based on a geotechnical
engineering report but in no instances less than the buffer width.
o Trench length shall not exceed 100 feet from the inlet sump.
o Each trench shall have one observation well, that extends.to the bottom of the trench, located at
a point approximately halfway along the trench length.
4.5.1-1 11/92
INSTALLATION AND OWNER MAINTENANCE MANUAL
FOR INFILTRATION TRENCH
1. The Catch Basin Sump shall be cleaned ofall debris at the time of construction prior
to tying in any roof drains.
2. The Catch Basin Sump shall be cleaned of all debris by a qualified contractor oin a
yearly -basis.
JOB NO, 10-01.1-C
1�
RECE'-Vff'-
DEC 4 1 1999
Dennis M. Bruce, P. E. 11WF8TFAP,' Fpjl�,!pFfp�q' I N C
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
Geotechnical/Givil Engineer
December 17, 1999
Landsver.k Quality Homes, Inc.
19511 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Attn: Mr. Duane, Landsverk, President
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation and Foundation Recommendation
Proposed Two New Single Family Residences
Lots No. 1 and 2, 19518 - 94th Place West
Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of two
building lots (Lots No. 1 and 2) at *19518 - 94th Place West, Edmonds, Washington.
This evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of
Edmonds requirements.
REFERE-N-CES:
• Location map
• Site plan and topographic map by Western Surveyors, Inc.
• Site photographs
V L, I W KI n
Lots No. 1 and 2 have never been developed, and are covered by mature trees
and dense underbrush. Lot No. 1 consists of approximately three acres, and Lot No. 2
consists of approximately one acre (see site plan). Both lots exist adjacent and no'rth
of S.R. 524 (196th Street). The southern portions of both lots contain relatively steep
slopes adjacent S.R. 524. The slopes reside at approximately 3H:*2V.
Visual examination of the properties revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: No settlements, no shifting, no soil creep, nor any significant erosional
degradation were observed.
Adjacent properties in the immediate vicinity have been developed with single
family residences. It is understood that Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc., intends to
construct a single family residence on Lot No. 1, as well as an additional single family
residence on Lot No. 2. It is further understood that City of Edmonds building code
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PEWIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
10 - 0-71- C
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Pagetwo
requires improvement to the existing Excelsior Place roadway in order to service these
two new single family residences. These lots may also be accessed by the existing
street network to the east.
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, nine (9) soil test
pits were dug under this engineer's observation on December 3, 1999 using a rubber -
tired backh.oe (see photographs and site plan for test pit local -ions). All nine test pits
revealed similar subgrade conditions, and were consistent with this engineer's
experience in the area. The following test pit log is reflective of the subgracle
conditions of all nine test pits:
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and slight top soil (forest duff)
6" to approx. 7.5' Medium to coarse sands with occasional
(bottom of pit) cobbles. Dense to very dense at
five foot depths. Subgrade sands
contain less than six percent material
No water was encountered in any of the nine test pits. All test pit walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
Ken Isivil--] Eel
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, both lots (No. 1 and No. 2 at 19518 - 94th Place West) are geotechnically
approved for the proposed Landsverk Quality Homes two new single family
residences, subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
Set back distance from top -of -slope: This engineer walked the top -of -slope
alignment and placed staking. This top -of -slope line is indicated on Western
Surveyors topographic map, The proposed two new residences may be
constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, up to fifteen feet
set back from the top -of -slope alignment. Note: If desired, residence may be
constructed within this fifteen foot setback, however, specific and more costly
foundation methods would be required.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page three
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended -for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressi..ire of
350 p.c.f.
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continUOUS and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled Gengral Earthwork a0d St[.o_q.,UrW_[_NI
for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous arid
individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (24) inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches
below the lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required
below footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill
the over excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least
as wide as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width.
For example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of a three-foot
wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per
square foot (p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used
when considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total post- constru ctio n settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the
foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill
placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We
recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to
lateral loading:
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page four
rVarteter Desian Valu—
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils
or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these
soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand'or gravel
underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4)
inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic
membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height
which restrain level backfill:
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
PF-M me MM
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
0.55
125 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page five
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active eq bivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing
the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and
sliding.
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above
the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to tile above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind tile walls, then we will
need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backf ill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should
contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater
than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve
should be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt
content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi
and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage
composites should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. the
purpose of these backf ill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the
retaining wall as not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind
the wall. The subsection entitled G-energl Earthwork and -Structural Fill contains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind
retaining and foundation walls.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page six
I X-1 ATE, 11, 9. M. Z WA me] M -M Lei
I In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steelDer than 1:1
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts
may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils ShOUld be
inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 1:1 It is
important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. J"he, (,I)ntractors
should be made aware of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the
surficial layer of soil.
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least sii (6) inches of one -inch -minus
washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or
similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as
low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and
surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No ground water was observed in any of the nine test pits during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs.
during winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use
of drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches.at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and site should. be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page seven
GEL4,ERAL EARTHYYORK AND STRQCTURALFILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped
.or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural
fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind [.')ermanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils n eeds to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after
excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that 11joisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of
fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and
compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case
should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table
presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of -Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
r-Q F I I -
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test -Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Solis
As stated, the subgrade soils consist of relatively clean sands with occasional
gravels. These on-site'soils provide for excellent fill material, if required.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page eight
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "most" on -site soils for fill material ay be acceptable if the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONIR
, 0 L-S.-
No drainage problems were evident on either Lot No. 1 or Lot No. 2. Given the
extremely porous nature of the subgrade soils, surface water runoff is a rar(--.,
occurrence. Most storm water percolates into the sandy soils. Whatever storm water
runoff would exist would flow down slope (southerly) into the existing City of Edmonds
/ S.R. 524 roadside drainaae system.
This engineer conducted four (4) percolation tests (Test Pits No. 2, 4, 8 and 9).
This engineer followed the recommended procedure in King County drainage manual,
with saturated test conditions. Percolation rates varied from eighteen inches (18") per
hour (minimum in one test pit) to "almost instantaneous". Thus, the high permeability
of the subgrade sands was verified.
This engineer recommends using a maximum infiltration rate of thirteen inches
(13") per hour for the storm water infiltration system.
NOTE: This engineer strongly recommends the use of the on -site infiltration
system for storm water management. It is understood that a storm water tightline .
system exists down slope, adjacent S.R. No. 524. In order to "tie-in" with this storin
water system, a steep trench would be required along the slope face above S.R.*524.
This steep face trenching would create geotechnical instabilities. Thus, it is rL t
Q.
r2cgmmended to utilize a tightline drainage system down slope.
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls,
etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of
concrete mix.
kAli r e- 4rd, r- C., 0
art
a- /10
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page nine
LOW-13.1;W01
This engineer observed the existing road configuration at 94th Place West,
intersecting S.R. 524 (196th Street). (Note: The street signs immediately south of this
intersection indicate 12th Avenue North and Puget Drive --see photographs.)
Currently, traffic signage requires a right turn only (west turn), leaving Lots 1 and 2,
and merging into S.R. 524. This "right turn only" exits along an gAjrQ n
Lu_Ln
.. This engineer observed and subsequently verified that standard passenger cars
(and any vehicle larger) cannot negotiate this right turn only without drifting across
highway center line. This condition is Oanggrous. and should be remedi , ed.
Additionally, the sight distance up slope (to the east) along S,R. 524, is,
ininimal This minimal site distance is caused bya slide debris material 1�.�ile within
the highway right-of-way. This.dangerous condition should be rectified. This engineer
recommends City of Edmonds officials and State of Washington Departrnent of
Highway officials acknowledge this dangerous condition, and plan a mitigation. The
current excess material should be removed with a proper retaining wall installed
several feet back from the current line of site.
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
- Soil cuts -
-'Foundation subgrade verification
• Any retaining wall or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
The proposed two new Landsverk single family residences (Lot No. 1 and Lot
No. 2), are geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
This engineer approves the current site plan locations for the proposed
residences. It is recommended that final review occur once specific house plans and
siting are completed.
Landsverk Quality Homes, Inc.
Page ten
M41411Z.
The findings and recommendations of this report wero prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other .
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If,conditions are encountered during construction that appear to I)e different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
M-h
Ov WAS
r
7405
N A 1,
JEXPIRES 12TZ3/ vkvc;-'[
DMB:vlb
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
gyp
A r1*1 5
�q " __0
1 �_e4j _�,'
qp'
wri
"'N'ff 'k
Vt
wS
AVIS w
"YON in; 4
:T
W7%
'Ally,
A I A
IV
ShAzy 'I may
1: SAY,
All
oil
W! Z
I't krt4e
10
MM 7—
also M_ w" A j;
rs Y',
�:,Sywl WAR
7.
Ing qf�,
T "in
191
Ila
1 Y,
AN?,
oil
�w t,
17
'0
Up
"'W'D
ot
uv, `�i 7�
JUMP-11
ro I
All
7
WASH
All! 11;1",
M
49
............
lk
4 VE
All
5TOP
�kj
f NvQ
'JO
INV
Im
Nt�
6V
�S
AIX
-14
Aw.:
All 4
Ov
mi"A
AX5
Al
F.
1. �
MIR
VV
STO
4 1
,,XQF - ' , * , -, j�, "'
-INV
AVF. N,