20903 PIONEER WAY.PDF12819
20903 PIONEER
WAY
U
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: _q 7,
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICALAREAS: —DETERMINATION: [—]Conditional Waiver Study Required E] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR:
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: —
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE
SHORT PLAT FILE:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
WATER METER TAP CARD DA
Arlo
LID #:
LOT: BLOCK:
LATEMP\DSrs\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
r
10
July 28, 2015
ES-4028
Dave and Stephanie Anderson
20903 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Attention: Dave and Stephanie Anderson
Subject: Slope Buffer Consultation
20903 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineering Study
E-1 0075, dated May 14, 2002
Richard A. Okimoto Architect, Inc.
Anderson Residence Remodel
Project Plans
Sheets A-1, and A-2
Dated June 11, 2015
Dear Mr. and Mrs. Anderson:
Earth
Solutions
NWLLC
Earth Solutions NW LLC
• Geotechnical Engineering
• Construction Monitoring
• Environmental Sciences
In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW, LLC (ESNW) has reviewed the
referenced site plan, geotechnical engineering study, and the applicable City of Edmonds
municipal code regarding geologically hazardous areas. We have provided geotechnical
recommendations herein, for geologically hazardous area buffer reductions for the proposed
development.
A concrete patio is present in the northern portion of the back yard of the single-family
residence at the subject site. A two -tiered rockery is present at the eastern side of the site
which ascends approximately 20 feet towards the east, and to neighboring residential
properties. The area to the east of the patio (including the rockery) is designated as a
geologically hazardous area by the City of Edmonds.
We visited the site to perform a visual reconnaissance of the rockery and slope (July 2015).
The rockery was observed in a satisfactory condition, with little to n,o weathering of the rock.
No signs of instability such as tension cracks, surface seeps, or down -sets were observed in
and around the sloped area on the subject site. The soil conditions in and around the rockery
were observed to be dense when tested with a 1/2 inch diameter T-probe. No signs of soil
erosion were observed in and around the rockery; and the majority of the area is vegetated.
These observations indicate the rockery and slopes surrounding the rockery ar a -f-bla
condition. ema FuB
JUL 2 8 2015
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201 0 Bellevue, WA 98005 o (425) 449-4704 e FAX (425) 449-4711
SUILDING DEPAR71MENT
ciTY OF EDMONDS
Dave and Stephanie Anderson
July 28, 2015
ES-4028
Page 2
The existing concrete patio is set back several feet from the toe -of -rockery. The owner of the
property wishes to demolish and replace the patio with a deck constructed of Timbertech
composite decking material which would allow stormwater runoff to pass through the deck; and
create an outdoor living space. The remodel of the back yard will increase the square footage
of the existing patio surface area condition by 126 square feet. The expansion of the surface
area of the outdoor living space will be to the south; and will mimic the slope buffer of the
existing condition of the concrete patio. There is no proposed building on the slope, and
stormwater runoff from the roof of the deck will be collected with gutters and be directed to an
approved discharge point.
The City of Edmonds municipal code 23.80-060 General Requirements
Section A
In our opinion, the proposed deck construction will not increase the threat of geological hazard
to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions due to the fact that there will be no
modification to the geologically hazardous area. Nor will the proposed deck construction
impact other critical areas due to best management practices being utilized for construction of
the deck. The deck construction/expansion is designed so that the hazard to the project is
mitigated to a level equal to the predevelopment conditions, due to the fact that the proposed
deck will not further reduce the slope buffer; but will be mimicking the current back yard
configuration.
The City of Edmonds municipal code 23.80.070 Specific Hazards
Section All
Based on review of the referenced plan, underlying soil conditions in and around the subject
site described in the referenced report, and the condition of the slope and rockery on the
subject site; the proposed buffer distances are acceptable. In our opinion, the proposed buffer
reduction is in general conformance with geotechnical recommendations; and will adequately
protect the proposed development, and adjacent developments and uses and the subject
critical area.
Section A2
Based on review of the referenced documents and our site visit, the alterations to the landslide
hazard area buffer are suitable from a geotechnical standpoint because the development will
not 'increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties beyond
predevelopment conditions. Surface water will not affect the adjacent properties due to the
subject site surface elevation is lower than that of the adjacent property sited to the east, and
subsequently connected to the landslide hazard area. As a result, the proposed development
will not decrease the slope stability on adjacent properties or in other critical areas. We base
this opinion on the fact that no alterations or modifications are planned for the critical area.
Earth Solutions NK LLC
Dave and Stephanie Anderson
July 28, 2015
ES-4028
Page 3
We trust this letter and plan review meet your current needs. If you have questions, or if
additional information is required, please call.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
Stephen H. Avril
Project Geologist
V1. C A —4
P 4V, 'q
A
%
1,0",
Kyle R. Campbell, P.E.
Principal
Earth Solutions NW, LLC
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
STREETf�LEJJ
Name: A\Ars-u,,
(19 f IQ 100-7`166D,9zi-0,D)
Date: -:77i T,
Site Address:
2.0o 3 4�lrvzr
Plan Check #:
Project D . escription: ovjo
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (qgl NO)
Zoning:
Map Page:
Corner Lot: (YES
Flag Lot: (YES P 00
Critical Areas Determination #- 4 4
Study Required
Waiver
SEPA Determination:
Exempt
El Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
Required Setback5
St et: L9
F—sFde:
/V
ST'd:
Rear:
ActualSetback5-�o dtc*-
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
Detached Structures: eraj;q,5-
Rockeries: 5-eAq�C4/ cbc 119 )"r f-C C C/o, C-
El Fences/Trellises-
11 Bay Windows/Projecting Modulation:
El Stairs/Deck:
Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height: ('oo-'-I,-' P \per
Other
Parking Required:
Parking Provided: t-601.
Lot Area:
Maximum Lot Coverage,-:�� Propose
Lot Coverage Calculations: (3011 5�) J, 6M 3 A-4t�-
ADU Created: (YES
Subdivision:
dran 'k 66 Ve7 Lz- /V 00 -L ot 7 1 Lo
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES
c6mment5
Plan Review By:
Planning Data Form 04-11-06.doc
City of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:
Property Owner:
Critical Area File #:
U/i ZO
Permit Number:
Site Location:
Z-9 3 ez r
Parcel Number:
0
Project Description:
oe-c'k-v- co V'J'�
F-1 Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above.
I There will be no alteration of a -Critical Area or its required buffer.
2. The proposal. is an �Ilowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or
23.80.040.
3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.2.3 0.
Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with ECD.0 18.30.
r7l Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40,120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. The proposal is.consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. e'- Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40. 110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal.protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. // The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
Fj Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project* is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas'and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria ih ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
Fj Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above., Se6 referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
FA W
Reviewei
Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
If Of
A,S
C.)
E.Djo,_
a
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS-BUILTI
A
:::) ADDRESSi PERMIT
20903 PIONEER WY NO.
CONTRACTORi HOMEOWNERi
xxxxx MADRONA COVE
DATE INSPECTEDs INSPECTED BYi DATE DRAWNi
12-19-2005 JH 1 08-13-07
10050
L�LLI
NTS
DRAWN BY,
J.TRIEU
1 " POLY 200
PSI @ 18"
DEEP---�
w m"
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
A
6 ADDRESSi PERMIT
20903 PIONEER WY NO - BLD20050644
CONTRACTORi HOMEOWNERi SCALE,
xxxxxx I MADRONA COVE I NTS
DATE INSPECTED, INSPECTED BYi DATE DRAWNi DRAWN BYi
12-19-2005 JH 1 08-13-07 1 J.TRIEU
E005-Z3
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
May 14, 2002
PREPARED FOR
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
'r�
1; ri - *
rA
tFXMRFS
Raymond -A. Coglas, P.E.
Project Manager
Earth Consultants, Inc.
1805 - 136th Place Northeast, Suite 201
Bellevue, Washington 98005
(206) 643-3780
Toll Free 1-888-739-6670
M
SOFIREET FILE
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUTYOUR
GEOTECHNiCAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problems are caused by site subsur-
face conditions than any other factor As troublesome as
subsurface problems can be. their frequency and extent
have been lessened considerably in recent years, due in
large measure to programs and publications of ASFE/
The Association of Engineering Firms Practicing in
the Geosciences.
The following suggestions and observations are offered
to help you reduce the geotechnical-related delays,
cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can
occur during a construction project.
A GEOTECHNICALE.NGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED -ON A UNIQUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS,
A geotechnical engineering report is based on a subsur-
face exploration plan designed to incorporate a unique
set of project -specific factors. These typically include:
the general nature of the structure involved, its size and
configuration; the location of the structure on the site
and its orientation; physical concomitants such as
access roads, parking lots. and underground utilities,
and the level of additional risk which the client assumed
by virtue of limitations imposed upon the exploratory
program. To help avoid costly problems, consult the
geotechnical engineer to determine how any factors
which change subsequent to the date of the report may
affect its recommendations.
Unless your consulting geotechnical engineer indicates
otherwise, your geotechnical engineering report should not
be used:
• When the nature of the proposed structure is
changed. for example. if an office building will be
erected instead of,a parking garage, or if a refriger-
ated warehouse will be built.instead of an unre-
frigerated one;
• When the size or configuration of the proposed
structure is altered.
• When the location or orientation of the proposed
structure is modified;
• When there is a change of ownership, or
• for application to an adjacent site.
Geolechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
which may develop if they are not consulted after factors consid-
ered in their report's development have changed.
MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS"
ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES
Site exploration identifies actual subsurface conditions
only at those points where samples are taken, when
they are taken- Data derived through sampling an ' d sub-
sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo-
technical engineers who then render an opinion about
overall su bsu rface. conditions. -their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
tion design- Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those inferred to exist,
because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how
qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no
matter how comprehensive. can reveal what is hidden by
earth. rock and time- The actual interface between mate-
rials may be far more gradual or abrupt than a report
indicates. Actual conditions in areas not sampled may
differ from predictions. Nothing can be done to prevent the
unanticipated. but steps can be taken to help minimize their
impact. For this reason, most experienced owners retain their
geotechnical consultants through the construction stage, to iden-
tify variances, conduct additional tests which may be
needed, and to recommend solutions to problems
encountered on site -
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
CAN CHANGE
Subsurface conditions may be modified by constantly -
changing natural forces. Because a geotechnical engi-
neering report is based on conditions which existed at
the time of subsurface exploration, construction decisions
should not be based on a geotechnical engineering report whose
adequacy may have been affected by time. Speak with the geo-
technical consultant to learn if additional tests are
advisable before construction starts.
Construction operations at or adjacent to the site and
natural events such as floods. earthquakes or ground-
water fluctuations may also affect subsurface conditions
and, thus, the continuing adequacy of a geotechnical
report. The geotechnical engineer should be kept
apprised of any such events. and should be consulted to
determine if additional tests are necessary.
GEOTECHNICAL SERVICES ARE
PERFORMED FOR SPECIFIC PURPOSES
AND PERSONS
Geotechnical engineers� reports are prepared to meet
the specific needs of specific individuals. A report pre-
pared for a consulting civil engineer may not be ade-
quate for a construction contractor. or ' even some other
consulting civil engineer. Unless indicated otherwise.
this report was prepared expressly for the diebt involved
and expressly for purposes indicated by the client. Use
by any other persons for any purpose, or by the client
for a different purpose, may result in problems. No indi-
vidual other.than the client should apply this report for its
intended purpose without first conferring with the geotechnical
engineer. No person should apply this report for any purpose
o . ther than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer.
May 14, 2002
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: . Ms. Loree Quade
Dear Ms. Quade:
Earth Consultants I nc.
CeolechnicalF-ngincers.Geo4ogisis&Environn-tentaiScientisls
E-10075
We are pleased to submit our report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Study, Pepperwood,
Residential Development, 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington." This study
presents the results of our field exploration and. geotechnical engineering analyses for the
proposed residential development. Our scope of services for producing this study were
outlined in our proposal PR-10075, dated March 1, 2002.
Based on the results of our study, development of the site as planned is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to very dense glacial till was observed at the test
pit locations. Fill and yard waste materials were observed along the top of the existing
slope areas along the upper half of the site at several of the test pit locations. The fill
soils were observed to depths of approximately four to five feet. Based on the
subsurface conditions observed at the test pit, locations, it is our opinion the proposed
single-family residences can be supporied on conventional spread and continuous footinos
bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modifV
existing site grades.
The existing slope areas throughout the middle of the site appear stable. Due to the
dense condition of the native glacial till soils,, the existing slope areas should not be
adversely impacted by the proposed construction. In our opinion, the buffer requirements
for building construction adjacent to steep slope areas can be reduced.
Recommendations for setbacks and other geotechnical recommendations are presented in
this geotechnical engineering study.
1805 - 136th Place N.E., Suite 201, Bellevue, Washington 98005 Bellevue (425) 643-3780 FAX (425) 746-0860 Toll Free (888) 739-6670
Phoenix Development
May 14, 2002
E-1 0075
We appreciate the opportunity to. provide our services during the design phase of the
project. If you have questions about the content of this geotechnical engineering. study,
or if we can be of further assistance, please call.
Sincerely,
VSULT,
k. Cog
Project Manager
RACrjme
INC.
Euth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................. , 1
General........................................................................................................... 1
ProigctDescription ............................................................................................ 1
SITECONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2.
Surface........................................................................................................... 2
Steep Slope Evaluation ................................... w ................................................. 3
Subsurface...................................................................................................... 3
Groundwater....................................................................................... 6 ........... 4
LaboratoryTesting ........................................................................................... .4
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................ 4
General........................................................................................................... 4
Site Preparation and General Earthwork ............................................................ ; ... 6
SteepSlope Buffer ............................................................................................ 7
Foundations....................................................................................................... 8
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls ........................................................... 9
Seismic Design Considerations ...... .................................................................... 10
Slab -on -Grade Floors ........................................................................................ 11
SiteDrainage ................................................................................................... 11
Excavations and Slope ..................................................................................... 12
Utility Trench Backfill ........................................................................................ 12
Rockeries........................................................................................................ 13
PavementAreas ............................................................................................... 14
LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................... 14
AdditionalServices ............................................................................................ 15
Earth Consultants, Inc.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
ILLUSTRATIONS
Plate 1 Vicinity Map .
Plate 2 Test Pit Location Plan
Plate 3 Typical Footing Subdrain Detail
Plate 4 Typical Utility Trench Fill
APPENDICES
Appendix A Field Exploration
Plate A 1 Legend
Plates A2 through A 12 Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Plate 131 Grain Size Analyses
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREEr
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
This report presents geotechnical recommendations for the proposed Pepperwood
Residential Development to be located at 8526 Main Street, Edmonds, Washington. The
general location of the site is shown on the Vicinity Map, Plate 1. The approximate
locations of the test pits and the approximate limits of the property are illustrated on the
Test Pit Location Plan, Plate 2. Our scope of services included a subsurface exploration
to characterize soil conditions at the site, and preparation of this report with geotechnical
recommendations for the proposed site development.
We understand development of the site will consist of a 22-lot subdivision and
construction of a storm water detention vault. New access roadways will be constructed
throughout the property, and will connect to Main Street on the upper east half of the
property and Pioneer Way along the lower west portion of the property. At the time this
geotechnical engineering study was prepared, a final grading plan had not been
completed. However, we anticipate that cuts and fills will be necessary to establish the
building lot and roadway grades. Construction of a storm water detention vault. is
proposed for the lower west portion of the site, along the new access roadway that will
connect to Pioneer Way. Cuts for the detention vault will probably be in the range of
twelve (12) to sixteen (16) feet. Cuts along the toe of the existing steep slopes will likely
be necessary to establish roadway grades for the new access roadway that will connect
to Pioneer Way.
The use of rockeries may be necessary to transition grades in landscaping ar I eas and to
provide permanent erosion control along cuts. Reinforced rockeries may also be utilized
along the back of the building lots located at the top of the slope areas. Preliminary
design information indicates that the alignment of the reinforced fill rockery may be
located on the existing slopes.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
V , .1� -
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 2
An existing rockery along Main Street will be maintained and incorporated into the final
development. The existing rockery is up to approximately ten 0 0) feet to twelve (12)
feet in height and was likely constructed during widening and improvements to Main
Street. An assessment of the existing rockery is provided in the Rockeries section of this
report
The use of relatively lightly loaded wood frame construction is anticipated for the
proposed single family residences. We estimate wall loads will be in the range of one to
two kips per lineal foot, and column loads in the range of ten (10) to twenty (20) kips.
If the above design criteria are incorrect or change, ECI should be notified and allowed to
review the recommendations contained in this report. In any case, ECI should be retained
to perform a general review of the final design.
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface
r
The approximate property limits and site topography are illustrated on the Test Pit
Location Plan (Plate 2). The majority of the site is undeveloped and heavily vegetated,
with the exception of several rental homes located along Main Street. The topography is
partitioned into two halves, with a slope area approximately bisecting the site in a north -
south direction. The slopes descend to the west at grades of approximately 30 percent
to 40 -percent. The overall height of the slope ranges from approximately forty (40) to
fifty (50) feet. Based on the site survey prepared by Group Four Inc., the steep slope
areas within the planned development are limited to the north end of the property
adjacent to Building Lot 9.
The upper east half of the property is relatively flat, with gently sloping areas that
descend to the east. An existing rockery and steep driveway area are located at the
northeast corner of the site. As previously discussed, the existing rockery will be
incorporated into the new development, and the driveway areas will likely be filled to
create a level building lot area. The maximum height of the existing rockery is
approximately ten (10) to twelve (12) feet.
The lower west portion of the development area is located at the toe of the existing
slope that approximately bisects the property in a north -south direction. The
immediate toe area. of the site is relatively flat, and is located along an existing utility
easement corridor that connects to Main Street on the north and Pioneer Way on -the
south. On the extreme west side of the property, west of the utility easement, there is
an area of ascending steep slopes. Development is not planned in this area.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
. X , A
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 3
Steep Slope Evaluation
At the time our field exploration was performed (March 2002), the steep slope areas of
the site were observed for signs of instability or severe erosion. Based on our
observations, the steep slope areas appear stable. There were no indications of shallow
or deep seated slide activity. The slope areas are generally heavily vegetated with mature
Douglas Fir, and there were no indications of severe erosion due to surface water runoff.
Based on our observations, it appears the slopes are stable.
Subsurface
Eleven test pits were excavated throughout the site. The test pits were excavated to
depths of approximately five to eight feet, where very dense glacial till soil conditions
were encountered. Please refer to the test pit logs, Plates A2 through Al 2, for a
description of the conditions encountered at the test pit locations.
The soils encountered at the test pit locations consisted of medium dense to very dense
silty sand with gravel (Unified Soil Classification SM). Sand deposits were occasionally
observed throughout the glacial till deposit. The depth of the topsoil layer varied, and
typically ranged between two inches to twelve (12) inches. The geologic map of the area
identifies the silty sand with gravel deposit as glacial till. The upper three to four feet of
the soil deposit generally consisted of weathered glacial till. The weathered till was in a
medium dense condition, and was characterized by brown to dark brown coloring. Dense
to very dense unweathered glacial till was encountered below the weathered glacial till
layer. The unweathered glacial till was generally characterized by a gray to dark gray
coloring.
Fill was observed at test pit locations TP-4 and TP-5. The fill consisted of loose silty sand
soils, and extended to depths of four to five feet. Yard waste piles were also observed
along the top of the steep slope area in the vicinity of Test Pits TP-4 and TP-5.
At the time the test pit exploration was performed (March 2002), the upper deposit of
weathered glacial till was generally in. a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates
moisture contents of approximately 13 to 16 percent, or greater for the weathered glacial
till. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was in a moist to wet condition, and
had moisture contents generally in the range of approximately 8 percent to 10 percent.
Earth Consultants, Inc
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May- 14, 2002 Page 4
Groundvyater
Groundv%ater seepage was not observed at the time of our exploration (March 2002).
The presence of light to moderate groundv%eter seepage, however, should be expected in
deep excavations. Based on the conditions observed at the time of our field exploration,
we do not anticipate groundv%ater seepage will adversely impact the earthwork.
Groundwater seepage levels and the rate of seepage are not static; fluctuations in the
level and rates can be expected depending on the season, amount of rainfall, surface
water runoff, and other factors. Generally, the level and rate of seepage is higher in
the wetter winter months (typically October through May).
Laboratory Testin
The results of laboratory tests performed on specific samples are provided in Appendix B,
or at the appropriate sample depth on the test pit logs. It is important to note that these
test results may not accurately represent the overall in -situ soil conditions. Our
geotechnical recommendations are based on our interpretation of these test results. ECI
cannot be responsible for the interpretation of these data by others.
DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
Based on the subsurface conditions observed at the test pit locations, development of the
site is feasible from a geotechnical standpoint. The proposed single family residences can
be supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium
dense to dense glacial till soils observed at the test pit locations. The building
foundations can also be supported on structural fill soils that are used to modify the
existing site grades. The medium dense to dense glacial till soil suitable for support of
foundations was generally observed at a depth of approximately two feet *below the
native ground surface elevation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFVNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 5
Due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils and the stable condition of the steep
slope area, a minimum steep slope buffer of ten (10) feet from the top and toe of the
steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family residences. As
previously discussed, the site survey prepared by Group Four, Inc. indicates that the
steep slope areas within the planned development area are limited to the north end of the
site, adjacent to Building Lot 9. In our opinion, reinforced fill rockeries can be
successfully constructed on the existing steep slope, provided an engineered rockery
design is completed. Steep slope buffer and foundation recommendations are provided in
the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery
design recommendations are provided in the Rockeries section of this report.
in our opinion, the majority of the existing rockery located along Main Street can be
utilized and incorporated into -the new development. Several of the existing rocks along
the upper row of the rockery, however, will need to be replaced due to severe
weathering. ECI will work with the contractor to identify the rocks that need to be
replaced. With regard to the existing driveway areas that will likely be filled and brought
up to the level of the existing rockery, the use of a geogrid reinforced fill will be
necessary where the fill heights exceed approximately four feet. An engineered rockery
design will also be needed for the proposed fill areas along the alignment of the existing
.Main Street rockery.
In our opinion,- construction of the proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense to.dense glacial till soil will likely be encountered
in the excavation for the storm water detention vault. Based on the conditions observed
at the test pit locations, groundv%eter seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundv�eter seepage will
likely not adversely impact the stability of the detention vault excavation.
Recommendations for temporary excavations are provided in the Excavations and Slopes
section of this report..
Cuts will be performed for the proposed access roadway that will connect to Pioneer
Way. These cuts may encroach into the toe of the existing steep slope areas on the west
s.ide of the property. Due to the dense glacial till soil conditions observed at the site, it is
our opinion the roadway cuts will not compromise the stability of the slopes. We
anticipate the roadway cuts will not exceed six feet along the toe of the steep slopes. In
our opinion, construction of a rockery along the planned roadway cuts can be considered.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 6
This geotechnical engineering study has been prepared for the exclusive use of Phoenix
Development,. Inc. and their representatives. This study was prepared for specific
application to this project only and,in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under similar
conditions in this area. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. We
recommend that this geotechnical engineering study, in its entirety, be included in the
project contract documents for the information of the contractor.
Site Preparation and General Earthwork
The proposed development areas of the site should be stripped and cleared of existing
surface vegetation, topsoil, existing structures, and other deleterious materials. Existing
utility pipes that will be abandoned should be plugged or removed. Based on the
conditions observed at the test pit locations, the thickness of the topsoil layer ranges
between approximately two (2) inches to twelve (12) inches. The thickness of the
topsoil layer will vary throughoutthe site.
The ground surface where structural fill, or foundations are to be placed should be
observed by a representative of ECI. An ECI representative should also observe the
excavation for the proposed storm water detention vault and roadway cuts. Existing fill
soil and organic debris that is encountered in the building and vault foundation
excavations should be overexcavated. Due to the relatively high fines content of the
native soils, moisture sensitivity,of the soils will be moderate to high. Building and
pavement subgrade areas that are exposed to extended periods of precipitation will likely
become unstable. If the subgrade soil in the proposed foundation and pavement areas
becomes saturated and unstable, overexcavation of the unstable soil and replacement
with structural fill may be necessary.
In our opinion, the majority of the native soils can be considered for use as structural fill,
provided the soil is placed during dry weather conditions, and provided the moisture
content of the soil is at or near the optimum moisture content at the time of placement.
At the time of the subsurface exploration (March, 2002) the upper deposit of weathered
glacial till was generally in a wet condition. Laboratory testing indicates moisture
contents of 13 percent or greater for the weathered glacial till. The lower deposit of
unweathered glacial till was generally in a moist to wet condition, and had moisture
contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will work with the contractor to assess the
suitability of the on -site soils for use as structural fill.
Earth ConstAtents, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 7
Imported soil intended for use as structural fill should consist of a fairly well graded
granular soil with a moisture content that is at or near the optimum moisture content, and
having a maximum aggregate size of four inches. During wet weather conditions,
imported fill should consist of a fairly well graded granular material having a maximum
size of four inches and no more than 5 percent fines passing the No. 200 sieve based on.
the minus 3/4-inch fraction.
Structural fill is defined as compacted fill placed under foundations, roadways, slabs,
pavements, or other load -bearing areas. Structural fill under slabs and footings should be
placed in horizontal lifts not exceeding twelve (12) inches in loose thickness and
compacted to a minimum of 90 percent of its laboratory maximum dry density. The
maximum dry density should be determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation
D-1 557-91 (Modified Proctor). The fill materials should be placed at or near the optimum
moisture content. Fill under pavements and walks should also be placed in horizontal lifts
and compacted to 90 percent of the maximum dry density except for the top twelve (12)
inches, which should be compacted to 95 percent of the maximum dry density. If a
structural fill berm is necessary to construct the storm water detention pond, the fill
should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
Steep Slope Buffer
In our opinion, due to the dense condition of the glacial till soils observed at the site, and
the stable condition of the existing slope areas, a minimum ten (10) foot buffer from the
top and toe of the steep slope areas can be considered for the proposed single-family
residences. The City of Edmonds Development Standards. for Geologically Hazardous
Areas are found under Title 20 (Chapter 20.15B). The Development Standards allow the
required buffer distance to be reduced from fifty (50) feet to ten (10) feet, provided a
geotechnical report can demonstrate that no adverse impacts to the slope or surrounding
developments. will result. In our opinion, reducing the buffer distance to ten (10) feet will
not adversely impact the stability of the steep slope areas.. The observed stability. of the
existing slope and the presence of dense glacial till soils is the primary basis for this
recommendation.
Earth Constiltants. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 8
In our opinion, grading and the placement of fill on the slope will not adversely impact the
stability of the slope. We understand fill placement along the backside of the upper
building lots adjacent to the slope areas may be necessary to establish relatively level
backyard areas. Reinforced fill rockeries can be used to transition the grade between the
fill and the slope. In our opinion, due to the dense glacial till soil conditions, fill and
rockery placement on the slope will not adversely impact the stability of the slope. As
previously discussed, an engineered reinforced rockery design should be completed for
the proposed fill and rockery areas.
Foundations
In our opinion, the proposed single family residences can be supported on conventional
spread and continuous footings bearing on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil
observed at the test pit locations. Where necessary, the proposed building foundations
can also be supporled on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades.
Foundations should not be supporied on the existing fill soils. The medium dense to
dense glacial till soils suitable for support of foundations was generally observed at a
depth of approximately two feet below the native ground surface elevation.
For foundations bearing. on the medium dense to dense glacial till soil or structural fill, an
allowable soil bearing capacity of two thousand five hundred (2,500) pounds per square
foot (psf) can be used. This allowable soil bearing capacity has a facto r-of-safety in
excess of 3.0 against shear failure, provided the foundations are placed on competent
native soils or structural fill. A one-third increase in the above allowable soil bearing
capacity can be assumed for short-term wind and seismic loading conditions. Continuous
and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (24) inches, respectively.
If loose or unstable soil conditions are encountered at the footing subgrade elevation, the
soil should be overexcavated, and replaced with structural fill. The width of the
overexcavation should extend a minimum of six inches beyond each edge of the
foundation.
Exterior foundations elements should be placed at a minimum depth of eighteen (18)
inches below final exterior grade. Interior spread foundations can be placed at a minimum
depth of twelve .(12) inches below the top of slab, except in unheated areas, where
interior foundation elements should be founded at a minimum depth of eighteen (18)
inches.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFONG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002, Page 9
Provided the foundations are placed in accordance with the recommendations contained
in this report, we estimate total settlement of approximately one inch and differential
settlement of approximately one half inch. Most of the anticipated settlements should
occur during construction as dead loads are applied.
Lateral loads can -be resisted by friction between the base of the foundation and the
supporting soil, and by passive soil pressure acting on the face of the buried portion of
the foundation. Resistance to lateral loads from passive earth pressures can be.calculated
using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of three hundred fifty (350) pounds per cubic
foot (pcf). To achieve adequate passive resistance, the foundations must be backfilled
with structural fill. As an alternative, the foundations can be poured neat against the
undisturbed native soil. For frictional capacity, a coefficient of 0.40 can be used for
foundations bearing on competent native soils or structural fill. These lateral resistance
values are allowable values; a factor -of -safety of 1.5 has been included.
Footing excavations should be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the
formwork and repar. ECI should also observe areas where overexcavation is required to
remove loose or unstable soils.
Permanent Retaining and Foundation Walls
Retaining,and foundation walls should be designed to resist lateral earth pressures from
the retained soils, and any surcharge loading. Walls that are unrestrained and free to
move at the top can be designed using an equivalent fluid with a unit weight of thirty-five
(35) pcf. The earth pressure imparted on restrained walls should be calculated using an
equivalent fluid with a unit weight of fifty (50) pcf. The above equivalent fluid values
assume surcharges due to traffic, adjacent foundations, construction loads, or any other
loadings will not apply. If surcharges are to apply, they should be added to the above
design lateral pressures.
For traffic surcharge loading, a uniform pressure of seventy (70) psf should be applied in
a rectangular distribution along the height of the retaining wall. If sloping backfill
conditions are present behind the walls, ECI should review the slope configurations and
provide modified equivalent fluid values, as necessary.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 10
Retaining and foundation walls should be provided with a four inch diameter perforated
drainpipe and backfilled with a free -draining granular soil with less than 5 percent fines
(percent passing the No. 200 sieve based on the minus % inch fraction). The zone of
free -draining granular soil should extend along the entire height of the wall, and a distance
of at least eighteen (18) inches behind the wall. A surface seal consisting of a less
permeable silty sand soil can be placed along the upper one foot of the wall backfill, if
desired. The remainder of the backfill behind the zone of free draining soil should consist
of a suitable granular structural fill.
Seismic Design Considerations
The Puget Sound region is classified as Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code (LIBC). The
largest earthquakes in the Puget Sound region have been subcrustal (intraplate) events,
ranging in depth from fifty (50) to seventy (70) kilometers. Such deep events have
exhibited no surface faulting. Weaver and Shedlock (1989) researched the probable or
known source areas for the crustal, intraplate, and subduction zone earthquakes in the
Washington and Oregon area. Crustal and intraplate earthquakes are the only events in
Washington and Oregon in which there is a historical record. Shallow crustal earthquakes
occur within the North American Plate, and typically do not exceed focal depths of
approximately 20 kilometers. Intraplate earthquakes occur in the subducting Juan de
,Fuca plate, and typically occur below depths of 40 kilometers. The recent February 28,.
2001 earthquake that was focused just north of Olympia, Washington was an intraplate
earthquake, and had a magnitude of ML =6.8. The subduction zone earthquake, in which
there is no historical record in the Washington and Oregon area, would have its source
along the interface between the North American Plate and the subducting Juan de Fuca
Plate. Magnitude 8+ earthquakes are thought to be possible along this interface, and
would occur at depths of approximately 50 to 60 kilometers (Weaver and Shedlock,
1989).
The UBC Earthquake regulations have established a series of soil profile types that are
used as a basis for seismic design of structures. Based on the encountered soil
conditions, it is our opinion that soil type Sc from Table 16-J of the 1997 UBC should be
used for design.
Liquefaction is a phenomenon in which soils lose all shear strength for short periods of
time during an earthquake. The effects of liquefaction may be large total and/or
differential settlement for structures with foundations founded in the liquefying. soils.
Groundshaking of sufficient duration results in the loss of grain -to -grain contact and rapid
increase in pore water pressure, causing the soil to behave as a fluid for short periods of
time.
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFANG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 11
To have potential for liquefaction, a soil must be cohesionless with a grain size
distribution of a specified range (generally sands and silt); it must be loose to medium -
dense; it must be below the groundvQter table; and it must be subject to sufficient
magnitude and duration of groundshaking.
Based on the soil and groundmter conditions observed at the site, it is our opinion that
the site has a low susceptibility to liquefaction. The dense condition of the native soils is
the primary basis for this conclusion.
Slab -on -Grade Floors
Slab -on -grade floors can be supported on competent native soils or structural fill. Loose
or unstable subgrade soils should be stabilized prior to construction of the slab. The use
of a geotextile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if
necessary. A four4nch capillary break consisting of a free draining poorly graded sand or
gravel with less than 5 percent fines (percent passing the No. 200 sieve, based on the
minus 3/4-inch fraction) should be placed below the slab. In areas where slab moisture is
undesirable, a vapor barrier such as a 6-mil plastic membrane can be placed beneath the
free draining sand or gravel. The subgrade soils in slab -on -grade areas of the site should
be observed by a representative of ECI prior to placing the capillary break material.
Site Draing_ge
During construction, surface water runoff must not be allowed to stand in construction
areas. interceptor trenches should be established', as necessary, along the perimeter of
the building site before it enters the construction area. During construction, loose
surfaces should be compacted to reduce the potential for moisture infiltration into the
soils. Finish grades around the buildings must be sloped such that surface water is
directed away from the buildings.
Perimeter footing drains should be installed around the perimeter foundations to intercept
groundv%ater seepage. A typical perimeter footing drain detail is illustrated on Plate 3.
Under no circumstances should roof downspout drain lines be connected to the footing or
foundation wall drain systems. All roof downspouts must be separately tightlined to the
site storm water system.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 12
Excavations and Slopes
The following information is provided solely as a service to our client. Under no
circumstances should this information be interpreted to mean that ECI is assuming
responsibility for construction site safety or the contractor's activities; such responsibility
is not being implied and should not be inferred.
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local, state,
and Federal safety regulations. - Based on the information obtained from our field
exploration, the upper deposit of weathered glacial till that extends to a depth of
approximately four feet below existing site grades would be classified as Type C soils by
OSHA. The existing fill observed at the site would also be classified as Type C soil.
Temporary cuts in Type C soils should be sloped at an inclination no stee per than
1.51-1:1 V (Horizontal: Vertical), respectively. The unweathered glacial till observed below a
depth of approximately four feet would be classified as Type A and Type B soils by
OSHA. Temporary slopes constructed in Type A and Type B soils should be inclined no
steeper than 0.75H: 1 V and 1 H: 1 V, respectively. ECI should observe the excavations to
assess soil and groundv�eter conditions, and to verify the OSHA soil type.
Permanent cut and fill slopes should be inclined no steeper than 2HAV. Cut slopes
should be observed by ECI during excavation to verify that conditions are as anticipated.
Supplementary recommendations can then be developed, if needed, to improve stability,
including flattening of slopes or installation of surface or subsurface drains. In any case,
water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of slopes.
Permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation
to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil.
Utirjjy Trench Backfill
Based on the soil conditions encountered at the time of our exploration, the native soils
should. provide adequate support for utilities. If remedial measures are necessary to
provide adequate support for utilities, the unsuitable soils can be overexcavated and
replaced with a rock ballast and pipe bedding material such as pea gravel. The presence
of groundv%eter seepage should be expected in the deeper utility trench excavations and
the proposed detention vault excavation.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 13
In our opinion, the native soils can be considered for use as backfill for the utility
trenches. At the time of the subsurface exploration (February, 2002) the upper deposit
of weathered glacial till was generally in a wet condition, with moisture contents in
excess of 16 percent. The lower deposit of unweathered glacial till was generally in *a
moist to wet condition, and had moisture contents of approximately 10 percent. ECI will
work with the contractor to assess the suitability of the on -site soils for use as utility
trench backfill. As previously mentioned, the soil should be placed during dry weather
conditions, and the moisture content of the soil should be at or near its optimum moisture
content at the time of placement.
Utility trench backfill is a primary concern in reducing the potential for settlement in
pavement areas. It is important that the utilities be adequately supported in the bedding
material. The material should be hand tamped to ensure support is provided around the
haunches of these structures. Fill should be carefully placed and tamped to about twelve
(12) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought
into use. The remainder of the backfill should be placed in lifts having a loose thickness
of less than twelve (12) inches. A typical trench backfill section and compaction
requirements for load supporting and non -load supporting areas is presented on Plate 4.
Rockeries
We understand the existing rockery located along Main Street at the northeast portion of
the site will be incorporated into the new development. The rockery is approximately
180 feet in length, and ranges between four (4) feet to twelve (112) feet in height. We
estimate the rockery has been in place for appro)dmately twenty-five years. Two existing
driveways that ramp up through the alignment of the rockery face will be filled as part of
.the proposed development to establish a level building lot area. Construction of new
reinforced fill rockeries is currently being considered for purposes of retaining the new fill.
As discussed previously, an engineered rockery design will need.to be completed for the
reinforced fill rockeries proposed for the site.
Based on our observations, the majority of the existing rockery has experienced minor to
moderate weathering. The minor to moderate weathering was primarily observed along
the lower rows of the rockery. In our opinion, these rocks are still structurally sound and
will not have to be replaced. Several of the upper rocks have experienced severe
weathering, and should be replaced. These rocks are located primarily along the higher
portions of the rockery. ECI will work with the contractor in identifying rocks that should
be replaced.
Earth Consultants. Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEF?JNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075
May 14, 2002 Page 14
Pavement Areas
The adequacy of site pavements is related in part to the condition of the underlying
subgrade. To provide a properly prepared subgrade for pavements, the subgrade should
be in a firm and unyielding condition when subjected to proofrollirg with a loaded dump,
truck. Structural fill in pavement areas should be prepared as described in the Site
Preparation. and General Earthwork section of this report. This means the pavement
subgrade should be compacted to at least 95 percent of the maximum dry density. It is
possible that some localized areas of soft, wet or unstable subgrade may exist after the
pavement subgrade is prepared. Overexcavation and a greater thickness of structural fill
or crushed rock may be needed to stabilize these localized areas. A biaxial geogrid such
as Tensar BX-1 200 can be considered for use below the crushed rock where bridging of
unstable subgrade is necessary.
Assuming a properly prepared subgrade, the following pavement section for lightly -loaded
areas can be used:
Two inches of asphalt concrete (AC) over four inches of crushed rock base (CRB)
material, or
0 Two inches of AC over three inches of asphalt treated base (ATB) material.
Heavier truck -traffic areas will require thicker pavement sections depending upon site
usage, pavement life, and site traffic. If necessary, ECI can provide pavement design
recommendations for truck traffic areas.
Asphalt concrete (AC), asphalt treated base (ATB), and crushed rock base (CRB) materials
should conform to WSDOT specifications. All rock bases should be compacted to at
least 95 percent of the maximum dry density.
LIMITATIONS
Our recommendations and conclusions are based on the site materials observed, 'Selective
laboratory testing and engineering analyses, the design information provided. to us, and
our experience and engineering judgement. The conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in a manner consistent with that level of care and skill
ordinarily exercised by other members of the profession currently practicing under,similar
conditions in this area. No warranty is expressed or implied.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or
Areas Roadway. Areas
Backfill
Bedding
LEGEND:
Varies
I Foot Minimum
Varies
Varies
Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab
Base Material or Base Rock
Backfill; Compacted On -Site Soil or Imported Select Fill
Material as Described in the Site Preparation of the General
Earthwork Section of the Attached Report Text.
Minimum Percentage of Maximum Laboratory Dry Density as
Determined by ASTM Test Method D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor),
Unless Otherwise Specified in the Attached Report Text.
Bedding Material; Material Type Depends on Type of Pipe and
Laying Conditions. Bedding Should Conform to the Manufacturers
Recommendations for the Type of Pipe Selected.
TYPICAL UnLITY TRENCH FILL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
GcoWchMCZJ Enon"�s Gcolog� & F'w"a"MMI SC�VN* Edmonds, Washington
- FPIate
Prol.No. 10075 lDrwn. GLS Date Apr. 200.2 1 Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 4
M j
APPENDIX A
FIELD EXPLORATION
E-10075
Our field exploration was performed on March 28, 2002. Subsurface conditions at the
site were explored by observing a total of eleven test pit excavations. The test pits were
excavated by a subcontractor of Phoenix Development, Inc. The approximate test pit
locations were determined from existing landmarks presented on available plans. The
locations of the test pits should be considered accurate only to the degree implied by the
method used. These approximate test pit locations are shown on the Test Pit Location
Plan, Plate 2.
The field exploration was continuously monitored by a geologist from our office, who
classified the soils encountered and maintained a log of each test pit, obtained
representative samples, measured groundv%eter levels, and observed pertinent site
features.
All samples were visually classified in accordance with the Unified Soil Classification
System that is presented on Plate Al, Legend. Logs of the test pits are presented in
Appendix A, Plates A2 through Al2. The final logs represent our interpretations of the
field logs and the results of the laboratory tests of field samples. The stratification lines
on the I ogs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the
transitions may be more gradual.
Earth Considtants, Inc.
GRAPH
LETTER
-
MAJOR DIVISIONS
SYM130L
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DES CRIPTION
Gravel
GW
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
9W
t
Mix ures, Little Or No Fines
And
Clean Gravels
411111111, Q& 4
Poorly -Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Gravelly
(little or no fines),
Coarse
Soils
Sand Mixtures. Little Or No Fines
Grained
Silty Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Gravels With
Silt Mixtures
�raction
Fines (appreciable
GC
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Retained On
amount of fines
No. 4 Sieve
9C
Clay Mixtures
Sand
SW
Well -Graded Sands, Gravblly
And
Clean Sand
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
More Than
Sandy
(little or no fines)
SP
Pborly-Graded Sands. Gravelly
50% Material
soils
Sp
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Larger Than
More Than
SM
No- 200 Sieve
50% Coarse
Sands With
SM
Silty Sands, Sand - Silt Mixtures
Size
Fraction
Fines (appreciable
5---SC
Clayey Sands, Sand - Clay Mixtures
Passing No. 4
Sieve
amount of fines)
ML
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flo6r,Silty-
MI
Clayey Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight Plasticity
Fine
Silts Liquid Limit
L
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity.
Grained
And Less Than 50
C,
Gravelly Clays. Sandy Clays, Silty Clays. Lean
Soils
Clays
Silts And Organic
���Organic
01
Silty Clays Of Low. Plasticity
H
Inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Dialomaceous Fire
.More Than
Mh
Sand Or Silty . Soils
50% Material
Smaller Ttan
Silts Liquid Limit
And
Inorganic Clays Of High
No. 200 Sieve
Greater Than 50
Clays
5�-�Ch
Plasticity. Fat Clays.
Size
OH
organic Clays Of Medium To High
Oh
Plasticity, Organic Silts
PT
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Highly Organic Soilb
Pt
With High Organic Contents
Topsoil
4- -41 4 4- 41
Humus And Duff Layer
Fill
Hilhly Variable Constituents
The discussion in the text of this report is necessary for a proper understanding of the nature
of the material presented in the attached logs.
DUAL SYMBOLS are used to Indkiste borderline soil ckkssification.
C
TORVANE READING, tsf
r Oz. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W
MOISTURE� % dry weight
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBESAMPLER
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pcf
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LL
LIQUID LIMIT, %
-sz DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
PI
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
31! SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND
Proj. No. 100751Date Apr.2002 1PIate Al
Test'Pit Log
Project Name.
Pepperwood
Sheet of
I 1 1
Job No.
10075 1
Logged by:
KCS
Date-
3128102
Test Pit No-:
TP-1
Exavation Contactor-
UniversalLand
Ground Surface Elemation:
420'.
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
CL E
126 >.
7&
E
E
Surface. Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
13.3
16.4
15.4
14-5
T
2
3
4
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-30% fines
ML
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
SM
-mottlin at 5'
Gray s& SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by a TopograThic Site Plan provided by the
Client. Survey by Group Four Inc, ated 116199.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proi. No- 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date April 2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10102
Plate A2
Subsurface conditions depticted represent oui ations at the time and location of this wploratory hole. modified by engineering tests, analysis and
1!.,�=L7�2 are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept res;xxmibility for the use or interpretation by others of
Test Pit Log
Project Nam:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
I 1 1
Job No.
10075
Log_Wd by
T KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-2
Excavation Contactor-
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elev�ation:
424'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
cL E
E! -
CL
4, air E
0 w
"0) 26
u) E
Z) -
Surface CorxIffitons: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": fems
2
3
4
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-roots may e)dend to 3'
motfling at 4'
SM
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
-15% fines
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
QowchnicW ft� r—x*b&sr., & 0 Mrkim)emg Sckm&sts
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Pn* No- 10075
1 Dwn- GLS
I Date April 2002
checked KCS I
Date 4/10/02
Plate A3
Subsurface conditions depided repment our atin n s at the firne and location of this wploralory hoL% modifted by ergineering tests, analysis and
fjwnerC anLn r==Iy representairve of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsbildy forthe use or interlwetabon by others of
T'"t Pit Log
Pn*d Narne-
Pepperwood
Sheet of
Job No-
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Fht No.:
TP-3
Exmvation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevalion:
416'
Notes:
General
Nctes
W
M
cL E
1! >�
cL E
E
Surface Cawfitiorts: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and fems,
10. 6
7.1
....
2
3
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-wiM some organics roots
-mottling and iron o)dde staining at 3'
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel. dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
CAWdUWW fingftm(� Q4*)OL;js&
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proi. No. 10075 I
Dwn. GLS
Date Apri12002
checked KCS
Date 4/lo/02
plate A4
—WQ'Uf Idt-W %AARMtx1b W4AUUU ftVc5ern our ouservauons a xne wne ana iocation oi tnts eVwatory nm, rnMried by engineering tesft. analysis and
t�=-=.a,r,e ftf=nly representatm of other tMM and locations- We cannot accept responsbility for the use or interpretation by oftn of
m
Test
"ect Nam:
Pepperwood
sh(MA Of
1
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-4
Exuwation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surfxe Elevation:
404'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
cex -E
EL CL
LA- E
cc
6 M
E
::-
CO
Surfam Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4�': brush debris
11.2
7.7
6.
1 9
U141
MITI
2
3
4
6
7
8
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP -SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt and gravel, medium dense, moist
5% fines
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist to wet
Test pit terminated at 8.0 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.,
-FZ--
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prol. No. 10075
GLS
Date April 2002
KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A5
bubsunaoe contmons depoed repesent our oWervations at Vie tirne and location of this. eA*rdtory hole, rnoffied by engbieefing tests, analysis and
Lttmnt.
are not necessanty representabje of other tffnes and k)cations. We cannot acoept responsbhty for the use or interpretation by others of
�4-4 � thi. Ir-
74
Test' Pit Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
1 1 1
Job No.
10 075
Logged by:
I KCS
Date.
3/28/02
Test Pit No-:
TP-5
Excavation C;ontactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
Notes:
General
Notes
W
(0/6)
E
U)
CL
E
W
M
E
CO
Surface Cond-dions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": glass
10.8
10.8
'X. 4;
2
3
4
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, occasional cobbles, medium dense,
moist
-mottling at 7'
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist (Weathered Till)
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Fzfth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prq. No- 10075
TZ GLS
Date April'2002
atecked KCS I
Date 4/10/02
Plate A6
-wasurraw conanons aMaeu represent our obserMons at the Me and location of this eDplmatory hole, moffied by erx
gineering tests, analysis and
',�arj�jr=nly representatm of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsbldy for the use or interpretation by others of
Tin
f Pit Log
Project Nam:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
� KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No-:
TP-6
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevatim:
395'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
.2 75
J3
E
:,.,
.9
R CL
5- E
CO
co E
co
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
2
3
5-
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
-some mottling at 3'- 4'
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
—r-z_
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prq. No. 10075
GLS
Date April 2002
checked KGS I
we 4/10/02
A7
zwosurraoe conamons deptctea represent our obsenratiorts at the MM and location of this e)ploratory hole, MoClified by engineering tests, analysis and
tj!ML7�= are not necessanly representaM of other thnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
, #-A — thi. Ir-
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Sheet Of
Pepperwood
Job No.
Logged by-
Date:
Test PA No.:
10075
KCS
3128102
TP-7
Excavation Contactor-
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
40V
Notes-
-6
7a
CO 0
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 7': grass
GerKxW
Notes
W
M
n
CL
E
E
In
E
CO
CO
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SID
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist
).9
2
3
5
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Test Pit Log
Fx-Wh ConSultantS InC.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No- 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date Apri!2002
Checked KCS I
Date 4/10/02
TZ; A8
'aUUZ"UIIC9,V fAXKRKX13 Uep§UeU represent our ooservations at tne wie and iocation ot tnis wooratory hoie, modred by engineering tests, arm4sis and
,Lanty representairve of other tirnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 15
The recommendations submitted in this report are based upon the data obtained from the
test pits. Soil and ground%Aeter conditions between exploration sites may �vary from
those encountered. The nature and extent of variations between our exploratory
locations may not become evident until construction. If variations do appear, ECI should
be requested to reevaluate the recommendations of this report and allowed to modify,or
verify our recommendations in writing prior to proceeding with the construction.
Additional Services
We recommend that ECI be retained to perform a general review of the final design and
specifications to verify that the earthwork and foundation recommendations have been
properly interpreted and implemented in the design and in the construction specifications.
We also recommend that ECI be retained to provide geotechnical services during
construction. This is to observe compliance with the design concepts, specifications or
recommendations and to allow design changes in. the event subsurface conditions differ
from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. We do not accept responsibility
for the performance of the foundation or earthwork unless we are retained to review the
construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and
testing.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
RU
YS U
Fv,
OL
7.
ip
q-
.7 '9'
sit
'U
OYM
"M
2J6
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ............. ..... -----
4Y
T'
JW
iw
.v
rikit-Tii:
za�Tll FL
-j
221ST PL
KV4"
ZA
Reference:
Puget Sound Area
Snohomish County / Map 454
By Thomas Brothers Maps
Dated 2002
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
noEarth ConsLdtants, Inc.
Geotectmi<zl Engmeers, Geologists & Environmental Scienitsts
Vicinity Map
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
Pm� No. 10075
Checked RAC
Date 4112J02
Plate I
390
380
370
360
370
350
3SO
360
370
J80
It
V.
N.
'770—
'TP-Z I'
I To-
L(Q
<
390
7
_TP-4
I
4, 733
7Z.
-A.
17-
4'.
J
L
400—
sub,
P",
TP-10"
ITP�a
3
4�
-'Q TP�9
QL
V.
' -' '% 2
A.:
U
A
-W
-T'P�2 I.
LEGEND
I
TP-1—m— Approximate Location of
ECI Test Pit, Proj. No.
E-10075, Mar. 2002
Subject Site
Existing Building
6 Lot Number
NOTE: This plate may contain areas of color.
ECI cannot be responsible for any subsequent
misinterpretation of the information resulting
from black & white reproductions of this plate.
�0
Approximate Scale
0 50 100 200ft
4fo
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GeotechnicM Engw�s, Geologisis A Environmenw] Sciervists
Test Pit Location Plan
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
PrqJ- No. 10075
1
Checked RAC
I Date 4/12/02
Plate 2
6 inch min-
i
Slope To Drain
i>
18 inch min.
4 inch min.
0
Diameter.
40
pe
Perforated Pi 0
Wrapped in Drainage
Fabric
2 inch min.
2 inch min. 4 inch max. 12 inch
min.
SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE
NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING
LEGEND
Surface seal; native soil or other low permeability material.
Fine aggregate for Portland Cement Concrete; Section 9-03.1(2) of the
WSDOT Specifications.
Drain pipe; perforated or slotted rigid PVC pipe laid with perforations or
slots facing down; tight jointed; with a positive gradient. Do not use fle)dble
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalenL
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Fxarlh Consultants Inc Pepperwood
CoosedviicW EngkwzM GoobgkslS & Emkonfrou" ScimUlMS Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075TDrwn. GLS JDate Apr.2002 lChecked RAC Date 4/12 3
I
TeiiPit Log
Project Name:
Pepperwood
Sheet of
1 1 1
Job No-
10075
Logged by:
1 KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-8
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
416'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
E
CL
E
E
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
,21-2
11.3
2
3
4
SM
Brown silly SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during exravation.
Ez-Wh Consultants Inc.
Gnow'd a *a[ Fngftw-Ass� & fWrMMW.1" -WAMtbL--.
Test Pit LA)g
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prei. No. 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date April 2002
checked KC'S
Date 4/10102 ---FpLate
A9
buMurtaoe conditions depicted mpresent our oWervations at the time and location of this e)ploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
I
are
.�jr=s�!nty representathe of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsitAity for the use or interpretation by others of
T04PR Log
Projed Nam:
Peppearwood
Sheet Of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Lo%led 1AT
1 KCS
Dale-
3/28102
Test Pit No.:
TP-9
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
354'
Notes:
'General
Notes
w
.2 -6
mr- .0
ff
R
E
(0 0
E
Surface Cawfitions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6!': trees and blackberries
10.8
12.6
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silly SAND, loose to medium dense, moist
SP-SM
Grades to gray poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist
-becorn es with gravel at 5'
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsting grade- No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Fzrth Consultants Inc.
Test Pi t Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
No. 10075 Tz�
GLS
Date April 2002
KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate Al 0
bwmnaoe axMions Oepiaecl repwent our oW"vahons at the tam and location of this aploralory hole, moffied by engcgr� tests, anal�sls and
M� are r=rdy representatNe of other tmm and locations. We cannot accept responsbffity for the use or intapretation by othm of
Teit Pit Log
Project Narne:
Pepperwood
Of
Job No.
10075
Logged by*
KCS
Otatff-
3t28/02
Test Pit No-:
TP-10
Emayation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
359'
Notes:
General
Notes
w
cL .8
E
cL c-L
M U_
CO E
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": fems and trees
8-5
ATI:
2
3
4
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SM
Gray silty SAND with gravel, medium dense, moist
dense at 5'
-
Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prci. No- 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date April 2002
KCS
Date 4/10/02 _Fp;�'
All
ziumurtaoe corMtons depicted represent our oWervations at the time and location of this oploratory hole, modified by engineer" tests, analysis and
are not nwessanly representative of other tknes and locations. We cannot aWW responsbilily for the use or interpretation by others of
Test Pit Log
Project Nanw-
Pepperwood 1
Sheet of
1 1
Job No-
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Daw.
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-1 1
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevarim:
Notes:
General
Notes
W
cL E
0. E
a
E
>-
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns, trees, blackberries
13.4
7-7
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP-SM
Brown poorly graded SAND with silt, medium dense, moist
S M
Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
EZ-Wh Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075
I Dwn- GLS
Date April 2002
---7Date
Checked KCS
4/10/02
Plate Al 2
Wmirtme corKittions depicted represent our observations at the firne and location of this e)pbratory hole, moclified by erqjineering tests, analyesis and
1!�lq�
are W necessarily representatm of other times and locations, We cannot accept responsdxrdy for the use or interpretation by others of
f-4 � O'k L--
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
E-10075
Earth Consultants, Inc.
6 Copies
Reviewed By:
Scott D. Dinkelman, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
DISTRIBUTION
E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
Earth ConstAtants. Inc.
7
0
PLANNING DATA
NAME: DATE: 'Ey-
SITEADDRESS: OLOaO2� PLAN CHK#:
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?:(5) / No)
MAP PAGE: .90& CORNER LOT: (Yes / No FLAG LOT: (Yes / No)
,./ p5_6
ZONING:PP4�-?-0-? - 1 -7 CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #:
StudyRequired: nC4_4a 2 g -;t t j
Lj Waiver ov-'E"F 0 10 4-S
QConditional Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION:
UFee
Ll Checklist
LJAPO list w/ notari,ed form
Ll(Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
,& Exempt
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks--*" 4-h C,
Street: - 10 1 Left Side: 4r�p' Right Sidii:--S' Rear-7ttml:jo
Actual Setbacks: I
Street: 10 ' Left Side: Right Side: Rear: 1-2-0
Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes No / DNA)
U DETACHED STRUCTURES:
Ll ROCKERIES:
(J FENCES/TRELLISES:
L3 BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION-
Q STAIRS/ DECKS:
PARKING: Required: 2- Actual:. �-'
C)U�4- c,__e�
nc,+,,o CY',-. �2_CQO's
LOT AREA: Z7 a
LOT COVERAGE -
Calculations: P24
BUILDING HEIGHT: zcz_��
Datum Poinvnz"6-2rr,�a 0 lo -44r'-L L16;Datum Elevation:
Maximum Aflowed: ;�Sr ( Actual Height:
Yes)
A.D.U. CREATEDIP(No
SUBDIVISION:
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: (Yes—/&
OTHER:
Plan Review By: 0,' jj" . .1.4
461—
�P>l C"��
C-4-9 tP I
ce
2_ 0
NewBPPIanningDataFonn.D0C
07/06/2005 11:11 FAX 4252842855
0
[a002/002
July 6, 2006
ES-0069
Brandel Custom Homes
16723 Larch Way
Lynnwood, Washington 98037
Attention: Mr. George Brandell
Subject: Steep Slope Hazard Area Assessment
Madrona Cove Residential Development
Lot 20 — 22
20901, 20903, 20905 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, Washington
Reference: City of Edmonds Planning Division
Plan Review Corrections
Plan Check #05-121
Dated April 29, 2005
Geotechnical Engineering Study
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Dear Mr. Brandel:
iEart��.
SOIL11116 111$',
NWLLA:'-
Earth Solutions NW LLC
Geutechnical Engineers
Environmental Scientists
Constructlun Monitoring
JUL 23110)5
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
In accordance with your request, Earth Solutions NW (ESNW) has prepared this letter providing
a steep slope hazard assessment for the subject lots. We understand that the City of Edmonds
Planning Department requires a geoWohnical evaluation for the proposed developme.nt and the
slopes bordering each of the subject lots, as detailed in the referenced plan review corrections
letter.
The site was granted a conditional steep slope exemption during the permit review for the
development. The undersigned prepared the referenced geotechnical engineering study and
ESNW has since assumed the role as gootechnical engineer -of -record for the subject project.
ESNW is currently pro�iding construction monitoring and geotechnical services for the subject
project.
2603 1 51st P1. NE 0 Reamund, WA 96052 0 (425i 284-3300 0 FAX A25) 284-2855
07/06/2(105 11-112 FAX 4252642855 003/003
Brandel Custom Homes ES-0069
July 6, 2005 Page 2
Projecl Vespylliption
We understand that the subject residences will be constructed along the too of easterly
ascending slopes, We also understand the new buildings will comply with approved buffers
from the steep slopes. We have reviewed the architectural drawings for each of the subject lots
with regard to location of the buildings, and both existing and proposed finish grades.
Sua]mary and OWnlon
Based on our review of the information provided by the client, in our opinion, the construction of
single-family residences at the subject lots is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint. The
proposed construction meets the criteria detailed in the Edmonds Community Development
Code (ECDC), Chapter 21,15B.110, sections 2a through 2c, and the conditional steep Slope
exemption approval granted by the ECDC,
ESNW should observe the grading for these lots to verify the recommendations provided in the
referenced geotechnical engineering study are followed and to provide additional
recommendations, as necessary.
We trust this geotechnical assessment meets your current needs. If you have any questions, or
If additional information is required, please call. We have attached the Invoice to this letter for
our services.
Sincerely,
EARTH SOLUTIONS NW, LLC
logist
b
RESUB
Ob 0
S' JUL 13 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
36078 CITY OF EDMONDS
mond A. Coglas, P,E.
Principal
T
Earth Solutions NW
V
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any pmon preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical ' Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. Ile information'
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas soil
-surveys).
I AUG 2 3 219,02
41.-
PERMIT CCUN' R
A property ownff, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklis;t,.sign and date it, and submit it
.i6l,ihe City. The City will review the checklist, make a
preciii6ty site visit and make � a determination. of the
subse
quent. steps necessary to complete a development
permit application.
Please submit a vicinity, map, along with the signed copy
of this form to assist City, staff in finding and locating the
specific piece of property described on this fom in
addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent
informatioA (e.g. site plan' topography map, etc.) or
studies in �6njunction' with this..Checklist to assistant staff
m co , mpletin . g I their - prelumn ary , assessment of the site.
.The undersigned applicant, and histber/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration..on the processing of the application agrees
to release, indernnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds- harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attomey's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or
incomplete information fumished by the applicant, his/hff/its agents 0'r employees.
my signature, I certify, that ithe information and exhibits herewith subn-dtted are true and correct to the best of my
owledge and that I am authorizIed to file this appli a on on he behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATLRE-OFAPPUCANVAGENTLA—U ca U Mna ttYDATE Y118-i og
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I cer* that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public officials and the staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and posting attendant to this application.
Owner/Appftant:
Name
P.O.
Sftet Addms
�qt�nuond MA.- q WN 6
city State . zip
Applicant-Revresentative:
LLY-fe 00CA
Name
Sbr& Address
city State zip
fhone: Telephone -
address (optional): J0YtkftSmdQL)is�hmj:i. Email Address (optional).:
I . W10
CridcW Arco ChecklisLdod3.19.2001
CA File No':'-
S_ C, "Is
Oitical AreA Che - k
Site ln�ormation (soi-Is/topo-graphy/hydrology/'Veget��don)�.
1. Site Address/ Locatiom. r,
cou. ntNumber: 0�_
2. Property Tax Ac .. . - i. . ;- _.. 1 0
'0
00 r
Approxilm
3. te Site.Size (4cres.q:squarefeet).,
4. Is this sitecurrently developed? K yes; .no.
')k �;Ljli
if yes, how is site developed?1�111
5. Describe the gener4 site topogiaphy. 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 3� 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.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth:
Site contains areasof seasonal standing water. Approx. Depth -
What season(s) of the year?
Site is in the floodway floodpkdn of- a water course.
Site contt . ins a creek or an area where water flows across, the. grounds surface? Flowsare ye
Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?,
Site is prWuLrily: forested meadow. ,shrubs XI n-dxed
urban landscaped (Jawnshrubs etc)
obvious wetland is present on site:
Criticgi Amas CheddisLdocI3.19-2001
I
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Phoenix Development Inc Determination 0: A-02-174.
Site Location: 26 Main St. (5.23 acres) Property Tax Acct N: 3736 0 050010105
L8 5
Project Description: I Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the site appears to contain
and/or is adjacent to a number of critical areas, including possible wetland soils and vegetation
pursuant to Chapter 20.15B of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC). � I
Based on these findings, prior to submission of any development permit, you will be required
satisfy the requirements of ECDC 20.15B by completing the following:
Wetland:
My site investigation has shown that the site.contains wetland soils and vegetation that are
possibly part of a stream. Based on the above findings, a Critical Areas Study is required to
determine the hydrology of the area and to delineate the approximate boundaries of any stream
and/or wetland and identify its buffers. The required qualified critical areas consultant needed to
perform the study shall be a specialist in wetland biology and/or streams with a minimum of two
years' field experience with streams in the Pacific Northwest. All critical areas studies shall be
performed as three party agreements with the city selecting the consultant and the property owner
or applicant paying the fees.
The qualified critical areas consultant shall perform the following:
1. Classify the stream/wetland.
2. Physically mark the top of the bank of the stream and/or wetland.
3., Map the stream/wetland location. (see ECDC 20.15B).
The land surveyor licensed by the State of Washington shall perform the following:
1. Detern-iine the building setback from the buffer (required setback is 15 feet).
2. Create a map showing the stream/wetland, the buffer and the building setback.
IV If the results of the Critical Areas Study determine that the lot may not be developed, the
applicant may apply for a Reasonable Use Exception and Variance pursuant to ECDC
20.15B.170A and 20-1511.0490. 1
Name
Signature
Date
I
-0-
VIC
3736-005-001 -01
c e ib 7
51, 7 7,77-7.:�
T� -
�R N-FMb-effZ CA-2002-0174
-01
1/23/2002
PAR, �tot
fl hoanix Dev.
fx" T
su"
AV-
5/13/2003
---;Ddtdrmlnia�bhv,�� Study Completed
M. rson, lEarhart
q,
DATE RECEIVE
I CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
MAILING ADDRESS
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
4f2jC
NAME'
�� ),�)C=� _e�, C ry\
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP PHONE
t1Z �-- �
IT
NAWf C L#
'Awn" ALshor� "Tt"Mold
FPERMIT EXPIRESS
USE PERMIT
ZONE f
NUMBER
JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS
T NAME/SUBDIYISION NO. I LOT NO, 1ID NO.
;�P,LID FEE $
ftea* ol� I , 1,
I tb�r Approled
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required
C
Strest Use Permit Req'd
EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Required
Side.alk Required
REQUIRED DEDICATION 1_� FT Undergromd
Wiring required
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRv REQUIRED
YES 1:1 NO E3 3
w z
REMAWS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
z
us
011,
ADDRESS
- 4"
C;A 0—r 1,10
FIRE R IEWED BY DATE
fV
%
W
CITY Z10
TELEPHONE
"CIA
VARIAN.C.EORCLI
oe- _-d
�"SHORELINEORADB#��
INSPECTION
REQ Q
DqEs'�ONO
BOND
COSTED
$
z
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE
1E
COMPLETE EXEMPT.
EXP
SIGN AREA
�.ALLbwb) " 'PROPOSED
HEIGHT
A'�'-ALLOWED PROPOSED
2-4 - S
PROPERTY TAX ACCOI NT'PARCEL,4N.O
NEW RESIDENTIAL',, PwMBING MECH,
f
ADDITION COMPLIANCE OR
COMMERCIAL
OF USE.
REMODEL 4t_ L�117AMILY.- S, ON
- .
GRUADI G FENCE,
REPAIR CYDS X FT)
DEMOLISH TANK OTHER
9 GARAGE RETAINING WALL, FIRE SPRINKLER:
CARPORT 1: ROCKERY FIRE ALARM,
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED' PRO ED
� _ �r
0
REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRO "SIDE
1 , 11 -;45,
0 4- -
-PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRONT. URSIDE REAR
-
6 1� ? '7 2-0
PARKING
R11*D 1 1 'Ro"DED
..2— _
LOT AREA
PLANNING'14EVIEWE616V DATE
REMARtj!j?
[TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTWITY]l. EXPLAIN:
%
C C
lif KED BY
TYP a Fitic
E TION
cvoi,:�7
OCCUPANT
GROUP
NUMBER
OF
STORIES a
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
UNITS
CRITICAL 1;:�M
AREAS
NUMBER'lb ni-- 1 -7 q-
SPECIAL INSPECTION
REQUIRE ES'
A
J�
OCCUPANT
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMA4,
PROGRESS INSPEC71ONS PER UBC 11081IBC11091,1RC109 FINALINSPECTION REO'D
Sim A�
N,6W
W#
Ixuaft. t&A
fn" Tk-..O-
I 0A9.
109,
_VALUAnON
U..fm A-Wr-
__,0 W ty,
7 7
Description ,�,F,,EE Description
State Surcharge
Plan Check A'
FEE
EAT SOURCE
qPQ
64ik G IN
FLOTISLOPE %
W --,,
4
16
7
�Buildinq'Pf�!rrlit
rl
City Surcharg e
PLAN CHECK 14�:,
VESTED DATE
iPlumbiggi,
Base Fee
Mechanical
)All
THIS PERmrr AUTHORMES ONL"Y THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t:
2
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
3
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
9-310--
1=
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
ul
PERMIT APPUCATION: 180 DAYS
—
I
PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
2
W
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANYAND
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapelnsp.
1
Total Amt. Due
0
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITVS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION. -
Recording Fee
Receipt #
HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION: THAT THE INFORMATION
GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I Am THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED; AGENT OF
APPLICATION
APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
receipt is acknowledged In space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
IC S SIGNATUREA DATE
SIGN4!!%E4RC)
DATE SIGNED
(42 15) �'Owv
771-0220
Pi 0)�
3 By DA
ATTENTtON-
EXT 133 3
%149
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILA FINAL
/919
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE'OF OCCU-
-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/iRC110.
ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW - JKSPE�CTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE
MAKING 4 COPIES
WATER & SEWER
INSPEC TIONS REO'D.
CALL, 425-7 0 - �220 FXT- 1226
'5-r,4 I 'z5 -rO A10'(
Pg (AJ 6A�6MC-NT
Atzek
10' UTILIT"r—
iE^5EMENT
r-ONr-FJ=-TE-=
STAIRS ON
(SFZAOr=
L9 (xzo
Lu
Z
REQU
0
r]
0
40
77 9.�' 8'
AT�6'23"
AOORESS
LEC--,AL
10' PRIDE FOR
LOTS 18 — 22
SITE AREA:
ut�!-5PLJ3631 -j x /I Z-
XXXX PIONEER NAY
LOT 21, MAORONA COVE
5,72cf SOUARE FEET
ZONIN6�: PLANNEO UNIT OEVELOPMENT
HEI6,HT C-,ALCULATION (BASEO FP -OM EXISTINC:;, 67R-A0E)
0 A = 352'
0 E3= 563'
E354'
K
/31729 S. F
Gj 565,
('10
FZESIO�Nr-E
PLAN/ 1
0 1452/4= 550.C:)O'
A\/ERAr--.;,E
0/
r-f= MAINia
1 3(-1;
EXISTIN67 (�RAO E= -3
FF LaV4EF?_
LONES FOOT[Nr5 2 60,60 1<
ACTUAL F-3UILF->INr--, HEIr-.,HT= E302.50'
.7
.1 1
MAXIMUM F-3UILF->INO HEIOHT (259
2
�p'6"T 5 9 41' f
ES NSISLE 8 9 3 E
V., R P( a -
FOR OSION CONTROL ATNDAMAGE 3 3S5 30
012 5 10 15 20 so 40 50
Q F-:1 I--]
U I I
L07 :21
�oo Y,4,105 Or- SURVEYOR TC? FROVIDE E3ENC,-HMAf;ZK MOST
1k,4-r&VAL —7�0 APROFRIATE FOR HEI6,HT VEF;ZIFIC,—ATION)
i3er IMFEFR:\/IOU!5 AREAS
f;ZESII:;)ENcf,E Vql 1440 SOUAfRE FEET
FOfzZr--,HE!5
5EE Or=NEI`�-IAL NaTE5 5CALr=: I"=20'
MAINTAIN PLAT INSTALLED EROSION CONTROL
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE
MATERIAL
SDR 35
SCH 40
N - 12
F81 0 HANCOR
ZonePw-g-o,;�-(--t I Comer Flag_
Setback
Reguired Actual
Front
Sides
Rear
IQ
Other
Height
enn A Lk - C6
FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO APPROVED By PLANNING
DETENTION SYSTE%. '-7
1:;)RI\/ENA'1'-S
PATIO
NAL<NA"rS
TOTAL
556 SOUAf;;i,E FEET
120, 50UARE FEET
100 SOUARE FEET
2,21rb SOUARE FEET
APPROVED AS NOTED
BY ENGINE
Date:
LOT CO\/EfRAC-.,f-=
( LOT C-,O\/ERAc3E IS BASE0 UPON 5596 OF ENTIRE
FLANNEZ> UNIT F->E\/ELOf=MENT)
14405OUARE FEET OF FROPOSEF-> LOT C-,O\/Ef;ZAC---,E
(INC,LUDES STRUCTUf;ZE, r--,O\/EREF-> f='ORCHE5, I:;>EC,<S C,)VER 50")
RESUB
JUL 13 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
STREET FILE
RESUB
JIUL 13 2005
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
t i FILE
16'
WATER & SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D.
CALL. 42,5-77)-942�.O M. Va"26 6 r,4 Oc XXXX PIONEER NAY
A16-7)
Vell-
LEC-.;,AL LOT 21, MAORONA COVE
5-r,4ir,-5 -Foivof �0
I:)ESC,
(IV 6A56MC-9-r 3110 1 1-46t - . I I
1�0 ln�� 340 10' PRDE.",FOR
/ i f LOTS 18' - 22
79',�8'/ SITE AREA: E3,-72q 150UAf;?-E FEET
10' UTI L I
EA5EMENT 'AT56'23"
I n- Vj I ZQ N I N PLANNEZ? UNIT 1:�>EVELOPMENT
E3
-ALCULATION (f3AE)El--) FRC>M EX15TIN67 67f;P-A0E)
35� j 71 HEIC-vHT i�,
I t:
5TAIR5 ON,
IQ)l 0 A= 552
12 0 E3= 563:�'
rh 55-4
%ui 0 c'j
F—>= 365,
7j29 F.
"ES
Lp, Te FnIA, 1) 66 F 166Nr-E 0 14E32/4= 555.aol
I PLAN/ 2-=--]— - tf-y I
z* 0/ F=f= MAIN/a 3(.1157 AVERA67E EX15TIN(:3, CvRAI:��E=
r_0 LONER 35 ACTUAL� F-3UILI:;>IN(:F,, HEI67HT= 5a2.50'
LONE5T FOOTINZ9 3
PA
�41 MAXIMUM BUILI:;)INC-7 HEIOHT (259-505.00'
TE RARY CONOV
E RANCE REQU E
M I -ix
E Ye'12-z;�5 Of-- SUR\/E-*rOf:?- TC> FR'OVIOE E3ENCHMARK M05T
5. 94 1 AFf:P-OFR)IATE FOR HEI(:3HT VERIFI<�:,ATION) APPRUVED AS NOTED
do ;
'0 ill L 'rlo
r-E-RI
N
89-5- 6 �3 E
I hc
"R IMFEEZVIOUS AREAS
E -S'r NO--
3%
FOR M-K-); AR -AGE 361v 30 1440 SaUAFR-E FEET
012 5 10 15 20 50 40 50 CVRI:�) F'0fR-r-,HE!5 Date-..
nF-i F--i
u
556 SOUAF;?-E FEET
L (::�) 7 :21
5f=-E 0ENf=-F-AL Nc::)TES 50ALE: I"=20' PATIO 120 5OUAf:;;-'E FEET RESUB
MINTAIN PLAT INSTALLED EROSION CONTROL NAL<NA-'rS 100 5aUAf---'E FEET
ZoneP,,,�g;k-t-ii Comer Flag_ JUL 13 2005
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE Setbacks Required Actual TOTAL 2,210 SaUARE FEET SUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
MATERIAL Front i0l
LOT
8DR 35 Sides LOT Gcll-jvEr<-/-3%C-7E 15 BASEI:;> UPON 55961 OF ENTIRE
SCH 40 Rear QC2 I ----
N-12 PLANNE11,1 UNI I OEVELOFMENT)
P81 0 HANCOR Other f
Dq 144c) 5GUARE FEET C)F PROP05Er�) LOT CO\/Ef;?-Ar-- E
Heieft (INGLUI:�)E5 15Tf;ZUCTUf;ZE, COVEREF�> f='Of�--IGHES, I:;>EG<5 C)VER E3019
FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO APPROVED By PLANININ
DETENTION SYSTE Li
F Lt
'v
06
7 —l"U"
vtw rx M�W AiV CAP
tar Ar jsAjW_smmw_ 314
3Z eSjVd7.9_V7,
A
02
AA, N-V
316
y
18
A
le' 5b-
t%
qf-rA AMING
Iq
0,5(
;;7
so
4R x
v
�76j,* f 5,66o
tMr
k? PA.
PJ5 SF
.4
ly .12
1 '7:
J�
0' $TEEP/
r
I 313b I io
?E
-PRO 01
New
20-
r 05 11
1 11
f r.�2 if
'nuTy
-X4
ACCESS SEM7
Irx 7>Pf2 L ------- j 1, 1 1 1 1 11 1 1 11 >E'M.5N'T ON
Jill a,
/9' cove N t 5
77 1,6' aW,^
t joiN
DWY-'ou-
lit/ If -1
LASEMENT—LOTS
8&9
Ar 14 7551S
L
j96
zZ.,
v A
L
, k �// I �/ I �\
---- @L--j
L —
f 5,402,SF s 39
Z096W AO' IMVXrar AMU
RAF 6L'-74s0-wa-oa"fZK
d( 4.069 SF A
C!
S4N17Ao?r --Q-j#FR
10\\�SBL—
SE>
12 V
rr SWR
Joy 61
4-1 If
58,tF INT 6,�63 , It. 3� SF
/ I \42'\ 11 1 5' LA SCAPE
5 V0'Sr6WAo',9,?A1N,4Qr z L 11
�FFE
v 4
JJR
11 e I / I , ", ,- -11 IL
>
00 In/ z
Lin
�w tF, 7-7 13
pr cjy-
< 1P' OR[
- ffW I / I / / � I
140 gNNA ex
If 0 429 SF
.1.9
4vo 6y
cp?
VD P 0000'
R E�pAt
f r
_\ I
AL %
SEX 0/00,0 6
4
k/oz.
it 56
CHARZeS & P4 Maer RARZ,6T
RZ 00- 7480- 000- 005- 00
63'
In -
IV
/*
0 Gy-
.42 ,2,r
Wo SW
4.771,
4.043
Iq co�� N,
I OT rr)\11=PAr.,P rAl rc,% MAY (ZTPHrTHPP HT rAl rq Ppr)PFPTY nFqr'PTPTT0P
REFERENCE 15 MADE TO THE SITE PLAN EXH15ITAND IMPERVIOUS
REFERENCE 16 MADE TO THE SITE PLAN EXHI51TAND HEIGHT EGA DESCRIPTION:
AREAS CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL
CALCULATIONS SUBMITTED AT THE TIME OF ORIGINAL PERMIT ECTION 113 TOWNSHIP 2-1 RANGE 04 QUARTER SW MADRONA COVE
PERMITAPPLICATION FOR THIS EXISTING RESIDENCE,A COPY OF
APPLICATION FOR THIS EXISTING RESIDENCE,A COPY OF WHICH LK. 000 D-00 LOT 21.
WHICH, 15 FROVIDED FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE
15 PROVIDED FROM THE CITY OF EDMONDS STREET FILE FOR THE
I
FOR THE PROPERTY.
PROPERTY. ASSESSOR'S PARCEL NO.:
TH15 CURRENT APPLICATION AND CALCULATION 15 BASED ON
HEIGHT CALCULAT IONS (BASED ON EXISTING GRADES)1/2 0100'1400002100
FIELD MEASURED AREA OF EXISTING SIDEWALK AND MODIFIED
EL. A, 352.0
FATIO SLA5AND/OR DECKING TA5ULATIONS.1
EL. 5: 363.0 TREET ADDRESS:
EL. C: 354.0
EXISTING MAIN FLOORAND COVERED PORCH = 1,440 S.F.
EL. D. 3(03.0 1432/4 = 3E7a.0AVE. EXIST. GR ADE 20903 PIONEER WAY, EDMONDS, WA 'Ba026-roc345
EXISTING DRIVEWAY = 55(0 S.F.
MAXIMUM STRUCTURE HEIGHT.- 35a.0 + 25.0 383.01
--�- NbMT4 bTm" 10-0
ENTRY WALKWAY (CORRECTED TA5ULATION) ho S.F.
ACTUAL ORIGINAL MAX. ROOF HEIGHT ELEV. 302.rpO! PROJECT SCOPE OF WORK:
EXISTING REAR CONCRETE FATIO SLAB TO BE
MAXIMUM HEIGHT PERGOLA ROOF THIS CURRENT
THE EXISTING TWO-STORY, 5INGLE-FAMILY RESIDENCE WAS
REMOVED AND REPLACED WITH PERVIOUS
APPLICATION 312.25'
CONSTRUCTED IN 200ro AND CON51ST5 OF A MAIN FLOOR OF 1,200
TIM15ERTECH COMPOSITE DECKING S.W%WIT-)
S.F., A SECOND FLOOR OF 11,3(oc3 S.F., AND AN ATTACHED GARAGE
NEW GLASS COVERED PERGOLA 1-39 S.F.
OF 1,250 S.F.
ftT_1q7?
THIS CURRENT PROJECT DOES NOT ADD ANY NEW 50F. TO THE
NEW- IMPERVIOUS AREA _1�m S.F.
ENCLOSED PART OF THE HOME - ONLY AN OPEN, REAR YARD
PERGOLA STRUCTURE AND NEW, 425 S.F. COMPOSITE WOOD DECK
. . . . . . . . . .
BUILT ON GRADE. THE PERGOLA STRUCTURE 15 COMFIRISED OF
TUBE STEEL COLUMN SUPPORTS AND & x AND 4 x WOOD
OVERHEAD FRAMING WITH 144 6,F. OF CLEAR LAMINATED GLAZING
;=A ;=I C� r)\I=;P ;=At-) ;=�Hfl T-IN P=Me-LIP.C� A;;D;= Te) RP PPAMPn I Tel
C14
LL1
CN
-1
C4
73
:3
d)
Z
OL
w
0
0
Ly
3:
0
0
z
-1
Z
THE DECK AS SHOWN. A NEW PREFABRICATED, REINFORCED
CONCRETE FIREPIT WITH GAS FIRE RING WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE z
DECK AS SHOWN. Lu u i
THE INTERIOR REMODEL 15 LIMITED TO REPLACING THE LO
PREFABRICATED METAL FIREPLACE UNIT RE-U5ING THE FURRED 0 w
0 a
FRAMING ON THE SOUTH EXTERIOR OF THE HOME - NO CHANGE; Lu -rp ko
NEW WOOD MANTLE, PORCELAIN TILE HEARTH, AND INTERIOR 0 CJ
WOOD SIDING COMPLETE THE INTERIOR, NON-STRUCTURAL 00
-J
HIGHEST SP. EL. 352.60 REMODEL. <
Lu
UJ Lu
u
U
PROJECT DATA: z 0
LUUJ Lu E
2 �_4
z U-
CITY OF EDMONDS, WA --, ;7 w
TINTED, LAMINATED GLASS c6 <
IN POWDER -COATED ALUM. CURRENT DEVELOPMENT ZONING: F__4 -r
SECTIONS 6 30" O.C. U) fu
iy- IRS 5INGLE-FAMILY, 5,000 5-F. LOTS. Lu
0 lu -4 4 x 9 SHAPED PUf;?J_IN5 AT 0 U.J
3011 O.C. SHAPED TO 4 x 4 PRD-2002-111: MADRONA COVE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION. 0� 0
AT LOW END TO CREATE 0� U)
SLOPE TO DRAIN. NEW GUTTER AND -q ;7 LU
6 DOWNSPOUT. GOVERNING AGENCY: D_
0-6.2
HIGHEST Fr__OLA F6--. LINE OF EXISTING REAR CITY OF EDMONDS, DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT. 0 in E
EL. 312.25" YARD WOOD FENCIN63. 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH, EDMONDS, WA -B&020 Lu r)
> 0
12ND FINISH FLOOR 2ND FINISH FLOOR PHONE.- (425)111-0220 WWW.EDMOND5WA.GOV <
H =8T OLA RF_
EL -12.2571;;��
FLR. FRI`-IG. PLATE LINE FLR, FfZIG. PLATE
1XI
Lu u 0 0
A GOVERNING CODES: E 0 <
& x 10 PIFRGOLA BM5.
L IL 1 -2/ , 4 x 4 STL. TU E COL. INTERNATIONAL BUILDING CODE, CURRENTLY ADOPTED EDITION. 1-2
1 2 2 AND 2 x 4 DIAG. BRACES 0 Lu 0
- 2 SIDES OF STL. COL. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE, TITLE Ici 24 < �7 LL
CONC. CAP AT TOP OF P-4
STONE VENEER COLUMN. CHAPTER 1(3.05 - RESIDENTIAL BUILDING CODE
LINE OF EXISTING. STONE
REMOVABLE CUSHIONS AT RETAININ63 WALL. CHAPTER 113.15 MECHANICAL AND FUEL GAS CODE ..........................
....... ......
_J TREX BENCH AT TOP CHAPTER 113.55 ELECTRICAL CODE ......... .......
rLJ1 OF STONE
.......... .
nf'f'l IlFlArklf'V -rVr)r--
LINE OF PRECAST CONC. I 1 1 F L_ .. . . .........
FIRE PIT BEYOND.
...... ... ... . ...
LANDSCAPED SLOPE TYPE R-3
....................
. ........
i V01 119
FINISH FLOOR
TYPE:
IST FINISH FLOOR- =4 CONSTRUCTION
M41M F
TYPEV-5 ... ............... . ...
11-W.I.I., ............. ... ..
........ ........
......................
/__E- D-11N AT EDGE CENTERLINE OF . ...................
..........
OF NEW TIM15ERTECH PECK FIRE PIT BEYOND. I A
AVE. EXIST. GRD. EL. 359.0 .........
.. ..................
Z .. . . .........
... .................. . ...........
...............
DEVELOPED SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION ar-ALE.- 1/4" 1'-0" PROJECT PARTICIPANTS: ......
................
.............
PROPERTY OWNER:
............. ........ .
.. .. ....................... . .. ....
..4.0 ............ * ..... *
DAVIE) AND STEPHANIE ANDERSON .....
..........
20eO3 PIONEER WAY, EDMONDS, WA 13002ro .........
............
t,MW V-O" WIDE GATE TO .........
HOME PHONE: (425AS30-112IT1 EMAIL, bssabC,nita0)!@mal1.00m
440'-011 MATCH EXISTING FENCING.,, 10'-011 REAR SETMAr-K ....
. . ...................
5' 8 1/2" ARCHITECT: ....... *.*.,.,.,.,.,.,.*.*.,.,.1.1.1.*:.I . . ........
NEW RANDOM -SIZED
10'_0'1 FRON EDGE OF EXI TI
SANIT,4R-r OETSA(zF,, EDGE OF 1=-Xl9Tll,*,,,,, tu STONE PAVERS WITH III /LINE OF EXIST[ ..............................................
PAVIWS SLA T RICHARD A. 0<IMOT0, ARC:HITEECT WA ST. LIC. No. 102rol
SEWE WOOD FIENCM.
7*117,rr PAVING SLAB. GRASS BETWEEN- BE REMOVE
N6S'r5rV23"E Isla, c3c324 225TH PLACE 5W, EDMONDS, WA c383020-5c324
LANDSCAPED AREA.
NEW CONC. EDGE OF .................
DOWN TO EXIST.
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .....
TIMBER-TECk GENERAL CONTRACTOR:
GRADE. DEMNG.
FAINTED GUTTER SAW CONSTRUCTION - WE51-EY 5NOW
C1
AND DOWNSPOUT.
..............
EL. A .35 .00 TIE TO EXIII M AREA 2230S -76TH AVENUE W., EDMONDS, WA c3602(o
I DRAINAGE SYSTEM ON
ZWALI< EXIST. FK GRD. E ist FIN MO51LE: (425)113-E�all EMAIL, saw-constructicn6comcast.net
b SITE. .............. ....
Opp
- - _-_ = = = 7= 7. E HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATI N:
F -f I -zoo 2,D (-I
- - - - - - - Li EXI WIGH11 I I I MADRONA COVE HOMEOWNER'S 4850CI AT ION, pufi
U ,,, -/,,- 1 1 15" DIAM. CONC. AUGER
Ifi - - - I I W1 :)W. Dfdl LED FTG. BELOW ARCHITECTURAL CONTROL C:OMMIT.T ' 9�s_ /tw�� AA Coot -
EXIST. L i�, F aor
Iro" _Sa CULT. STONE P.O. BOX 364, LAKE STEVENS, WA
VENEER 0/ E,/&. Tw_
AS_5UILT WATER LINE
V, POLY 200 pal a BUTLER'S XIST. SL. OR WONDERBRD. GHTG. clo ANNE LAW5ON-5EERMAN Fi_ ks -
I
AND SIDELTS. AND 2 x FRAMIW_% AT EMAIL: albeerman65@mall.com Fron�- w 1 0
fall DEEP. PANTRY 4" 60. TUBE COL. 10+
PEER A EXISTING EXISTING SEE DTLS. I Applicant shali repair/replace all damage to sid-S 5
EXISTING r 1 utilities or froritege;rnprovements in City PPR D bY MA Rear C--
DINING KITCH EN EDGE OF EXISTING right-of-way pet, City standards that is caused
7 /v Nc
NOOK PAVING SLAB. or occurs during tne permitted project. :j7� 1 rA
NEW EDGE 6_1
TIM5ERTE� r=(:kl z 5
TWO -CAR GARAGE
ENTRANCE AT
LOWER LEVIEL BEL -FUTURE
INFRATEC44 W-40 GAS
A NLr==PGER1_57`EAM AREA HEATER W1 SHEET INDEX:
SWIVEL MTG. EA SIDE.
EXISTING CONCRETE DETAIL. r, T' SOUTH EXTERIOR ELEVATION
DRIVEWAY.' PROJECT SITE / FLOOR PLAN;
A-1
5 A PROPERTY DESC.; SCOPE OF WORK; PRO]. DATA, PARTICIPANTS
TIMBERDECK PLAN; TIMBERDECK FRAMING PLAN
SIDE SEWER OF to x 10 CONTIN. A-2 Lu
2 uJ 4 1 MAIN FIN. FLR EL. 361.5 1,11' E C F E: <1 51 Its 3 LINE CONSTRUCTION DETAILS 0
Ad EXIST. f ,z v N.1 4vu 1 ME M �J,111 �H El \STRUCTURAL BEAM - OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
Lu C/o 6 31 DEEP ol LOWER FIN. FLR. EL. - 351.5 NORTH/WUT
POWDER FOR EROSION CONTROL AND DAMAGE 0 ui
LINE OF to x 10 FLUSH L6
43 TEST TEE LOWEST FTG- EL. 350.0
0 a, PEEP ED Br=Am -
CC% EAST/UEST DIRF-GTIOM 4
CL 2 U.
NEW 36" DIAM. C 0
FOYER -CONC. 50MWL D GAS W F..q
FIRE RING - FURCWASE
BY OUNER, INSTALL. BY 0 F-
N 4 GEN. CONTR. <
'-LINE OF TIMBERTEC-14 Lu
LEGACY "TIGERWOOP" 7 V)
EXISTING x
USING I" SQUARE
EXIST. EDGE 50AFZDS FOR
STAIR' GREAT RO )M RAISr=D WOOD FRAMED x
15ENC.44 SEATIW_%. U uJ U
EXISTING EDGE OF: NEW TREX
V0, (I A S I- 1A "TRANSCEND" DECK uJ 1. ui
P51L 1 P-"- A_I 0 8. q 6-4 1 J rn ;7 r-)
DEN SHAPED, ROUC-44 I-ELLN i/ + DN (1) R N
TIMBER MANTLE. LINE Or- NEW LINE Or- LOW, STONE 0 0
TIMBERMCW LEGACY VENEERED SUPPORT
LINE OF FLUSH TILE "TIGERWOD" DECKING BELOW.
HEARTH AT FLOOR. W1 SQUARE EDGE FOR E-
EXI
PAL TILE SALERNOI, AUDIO/VISUAL CABINET 501;RDER jWN CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE E-
ELE5VATOR ro x 24 PORCELAIN. N,,", BELOW. 14'-S" (VERIFY) NER/
I 21-On /r=XISTING HIGH FOR LOCATING ALL ON -SITE UTILITIES-
W rn A LIV I MI ITIFS
LANDSCAPED AREA.
RELOCAl luri/11tv'Olu"I
A I . . 0-0- . I . a
\
1 1
MAY REQUIRE SEPARATE PER
. .1-1-1 1 1- I LINE OF 2ND FLOOR a LINE OF EXISTING
I
Mimi= ANG ABOVE. M ROCK REVETMENT.
EXI . FIN. GIRD.
EXIST. FIN. GRO. EXISTING COMMON--___'
EL. 0 , 354.00
EL. D 3 3.00 AREA LANDSCAPIWzt.
EXISTING CONC.
STONE VENEER Fit- R
STAIRS ON GRADE.
EA SIDE OF FIREPLACE.
A 7A-- a 0 TS.F.
NEW MAJESTIC "APPLAUSE"
VENT FREE GAS FIREPLACE.
REPLACE EX15TM F.P. UNIT.
e
Lu Lu
o
PF,
Lu
u
Ln
z
<
CNI
(n
<
0
W
z
9
rn
W
EXISTING SIRUCTUI;M w
EXISTING AREA DRAIN AROUND FIREPLACE UNIT. in
A -OR REAR AND SIDETARD LINE OF EXIST[ SHEET NO.
EXISTING AREA DRAIN
A NATURAL FLOW LINE NATURAL FLOW LINE WOOD FENCIWI 0
r
513* BIC?, 2.31, E 55.94' A
Scanned
A-a-
AUG 0 5 2015
1-aUILDINIG DEPAR7MENT
_!7!CFE0!tf.,,0NDS I
PROJECT SITE FLOPR PLAN -SCALE.- 1/411 1'-011 0 __7 -2, 2- RE A"
0
Cn
0
LL
U-
0
CD
Cu
U-