The URL can be used to link to this page

20905 PIONEER WAY.PDF12820 20905 PIONEER WAY to ADDRESS: c---K-6,/ !Z I I TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NI BUILDING PERMIT (NEW S COVENANTS (RECORDED) m 0 CRITICAL AREAS:-66�— / Z!�� DETERMINATION: F] Conditional Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORDED FOR: — PERMITS (OTHER): Study Required []Waiver PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: SEWER LID FEE LID #: SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK: SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: SOILS REPORT DATED: STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: OTHER: LATEMP\DS'Ps\Fomis\Street File Checklist.doc PLANNING DATA NAME: y n n.� DATE: q Q -0's SITEADDRESS: C K')n-',2,�.PLAN CHI(MCY,:�r- 1.2 Q PROJECT DESCRIPTION7--t-q—�� 4Pnx=rZ- REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?CIN� /,No) MAP P�� CORNER LOT: (Yes / No FLAG LOT: (Yes / No Qlk�' ZONING: PVD-(3,P- 1-71 A=RIT CIALAS DETERMINATION #: IQQq - DO �;k 1 Pco g- � -1 L4 Ur Studv Reauired: 0 o . r, t—,), -J a ea— P L3 Waiver 4-0 1 14 LJ Conditional Waiver SEPA DETERMINATION: QFee L3 Checklist LJ APO list wl notarized form 0 (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger) 14 Exempt SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: I Street: I N Left Side: c,-')' Right Side: Rear: /S Actual Setbacks: Street:a I Left Side: (01 Right Side: Rear: '�o Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes No / DNA) LJ DETACHED STRUCTURES: Ll ROCKERIES: FENCES/TRELLISES: BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION L3 STAIRS/ DECKS: PARKING: Required: Actual:2- LOTAREA: (40-D-4 LOT CO ERAGE: Calculations: ILI --"Z. f,- C) BUILDING HEIGHT: -��g:ja 0 —Al ( j - Datum Pointc - �Datu, m Elevation: Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: , �)qL4. ;aw 'S A.D.U. CREATEDIING)f Yes) SU P.- 1-1 1 1 D-C-n - LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: ()Les �/ OTH Plan Review By: D 0 New13PPIanningDataForm. DOC '�. �' A ck ol 61c) cAc� 4-L� The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to be filled out by any person preparing a Development Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to his/her submittal of the application to the City. 'Me 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 iriv-lrldQel� WpV, Qr soil -Surveys). I AUG 2 3 2UG-2 I i.- PERMT CC-UN—R A property owner, or his/her authorized representative, must fillout the checklist�-.sign and date it, and submit it to.the. City. The City will review the checklist, make a precursory site visit and rna6 � a determination: of the' subsequent - steps necessary to complete a development permit a�plication. 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 form, in addition, the applicant shall include other pertinent infprmation (e.g. site plan topography map, etc.) or stuches in conjunction with this -Checklist to assistant staff in coiniple their preliminarya'ssessment of the site. The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration.con the processing of the application a I grees to release, indemnify, defend and hold the City of Edmonds -- harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleading, inaccurate or incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees. 14omy signature, I certify, that ithe information and exhibits herewith subriiitted are true and correct to the best of my wledge and that I am authori'zed to file this appli tion con he behalf of the owner as listed below. SIGNATURE OF APPLICANT/AGENTLn yj C�( I A o hyr, AIM%/ A M4WDATE Y 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. ---------- e,*"% Owner/Applcant: Street Address lk�tmMdAk)A AWN city I State zip Appffcant-Representative. Loyttl. C)ualdt-.� Name Street Address city State zip hone: Telephone: 'I address (optional): ht(B smdQ y i �Lh�a. Email Address (optional): Critical Areas ChecldistdorJ3.192001 CA File N.. A t Ip-ritic-al Area:Chec �,s Site Infomiation (soi-Is/topography/hydrolo /vegetation),. gy ati6rr:'* 1. Site Address/ L4X 2. Pr erty Tax Accou . nt Number: -61 Nj - mi5 ol 09F1 Pp 3. Approximate Size (#aeS..0X,..-sq.U.are feet):-. 4. Is Us site currently developed? yes, Ao. okAl If yes; how is site developed? &—MMA o3l -0-tot 5. Describe the general site topography- Check all. that apply. Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over. entire site. Rolling. slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 66-feet). Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15 % and less dm 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. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth- ISO- 7. Site contains areasof seasonai standing waten Approx. Depth - What season(s) of the year?. of. a watef course. 8. Site is in the floodway flOOdPlain e o to 9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across. the groOds surface? Flowsare y ar-round? Flows are seasonal? (What time:of year?' 10. Site is primarily: forested meadow. shrubs i Xt mixed urban landscaped (lawnshrubs etc) X 11. Obvious wetland is present on site: Cridcal Ar�as CheddisLdocJ3.192MI I City of Edmonds Critical Areas Determination r Applicant: Phoenix Development Inc Determination #: CA-02-174 Site Location: 8526 Main St. (5.23 acres) Property Tax Acct [3736 005 0 F Project Description: I Non -Project Specific Determination: Study Required: During review and inspection of the sub ect site, it was found that the site app i ears 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). - 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 sitecontains 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 *etland 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. Determine 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. 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 20.1511.170A and 20-1511.0490. 4 1 .4 IN= Signature Date 174 Dev. Main 5/1 Earhart 1-01 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY . PEPPERWOOD RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8526 MAIN STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON E-10075 May 14, 2002 PREPARED FOR PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC. cm 'C— JOnRFS 7 z-c%:!> -z, 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 a r, Lt REET F I 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 geotech n ical -related delays, cost -overruns and other costly headaches that can occur during a construction project. A GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT IS BASED -ON A UNIOUE 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 otherwis I e. your 4eotechnical 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 no( consulted after factors consid- ered in their report's development have changed. MOST GEOTECHNICAL "FINDINGS" ARE PROFESSIONAL ESTIMATES ' Site exploration identifies actual subsurface condi - t'ions only at those points where samples are take ' n. when they are taken- Data derived through sampling and sub- sequent laboratory testing are extrapolated by geo- technical engineers who then render an opinion about overall subsurface.conditions. -their likely reaction to proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda- tion design- Even under optimal circumstances actual conditions may differ frorh those inferred to exist. because no geotechnical engineer. no matter how qualified, and no subsurface exploration program, no matter howcomprehensive. 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 client 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 . 1her than that originally contemplated without first conferring with the geotechnical engineer Eafth Consultants Inc. Geotechnical Engineers. Geologists &Environmental Scientists May 14, 2002 E-10075 Phoenix Development, Inc. P.O. Box 3167 Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958 Attention: . Ms. Loree Quade Dear Ms. Quade: 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 alongthe 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 supported on conventional spread and continuous footings bearing on the competent glacial till native soils, or on structural fill soils used to modify 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 opiriion, 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-10075 We appreciate the opportunity tG 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, INSULTANTS, INC. k. Cog Project Manager RAqme ,. E Earth consultants, Inc. TABLE OF CONTENTS E-10075 PAGE INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1 General........................................................................................................... 1 ProjgctDescription ............................................................................................ 1 SITECONDITIONS ................................................................................................. . 2, Surface........................................................................................................... 2 SteepSlope Evaluation ..................................................................................... 3 Subsurface...................................................................................................... 3 Groundwater.................................................................................................... 4 LaboratoryTestiqg ........................................................................................... .4 DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................. 4 General........................................................................................................... 4 Site- Prgparation 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 Slopes .................................................................................... 12 Utility Trench Backfill ........................................................................................ 12 Rockeries........................................................................................................ 13 PavementAreas ............................................................................................... 14* LIMITATIONS....................................................................................................... 14 Additional Services ................... I ........................................................................ 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 Al Legend Plates A2 through Al2 Test Pit Logs Appendix B Laboratory Test Results Plate 81 Grain Size Analyses Earth Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY PEPPERWOOD RIESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT 8526 MAIN STREET EDMONDS, WASHINGTON E-11 0075 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 areas 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 Constdtants. Inc. 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 (10) 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 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. q I - y GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEENNG 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 ENGINEEFJNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May. 14, 2002 Page 4 Groundwater 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 supporled 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 ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 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 recomnriendations 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, groundvmter 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 side 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 ENGINEERJNG 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 Consultants, Inc. 10 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 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 ASTIVI 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 Buffe 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 Consultants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-1 0075 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 supported on structural fill that is used to modify the existing site grades. Foundations should not be supported 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 factor -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 ENGINEENNG 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 appro)dmately 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 fo * undation and the supportng 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 Constiltants, Inc. GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING 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 3/4inch 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 (UBC). 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 LIBC 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. Uquefaction 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 ENGINEERNG 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 groundv%oter table; and it must be subject to sufficient magnitude and duration of groundshaking. Based on the soil and groundv%eter 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 supporied 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 geo textile and crushed rock can be considered for stabilizing the subgrade soils, if necessary. A fou6nch 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 Draingge 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 buildin gs 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�eter 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 ENGINEENNIG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 May 14, 2002 Page 12 Excavations and Slope 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 1.51-11 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. Utility 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 ENGINEEFUNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 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 ENGINEERNG STUDY Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075 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 proofrollihg 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-11 200 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 ConstAtants, Inc. Non -Load Supporting Floor Slab or Areas Roadway. Areas Backfill Bedding Varies I Foot Minimum Varies Varies LEGEND: Asphalt or Concrete Pavement or Concrete Floor Slab FT-7 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 UTIUTY TRENCH FILL Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 10075 Drwn. GLS Date Apr. 2002 Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 Plate 4 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 logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types. In actuality, the transitions may be more gradual. Earth Constiltants, Inc. GRAPH LETTER MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL SYMBOL TYPICAL DES CRIPTION Gravel P CD, C�' � GVV Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand LOAOAon gW I Mix ures, Little Or No Fines And Clean Gravels 4111116 ft '4 GP Poorly -Graded Gravels, *Gravel - Gravelly (little or no fines) Coarse Soils 913 Sand Mixtures. Little Or No Fines Grained GM Silty Gravels. Gravel - Sand - Soils More Than 50% Coarse Gravels With gm Silt Mixtures Izfaction Fines (appreciable GC Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand - Retained On amount of fines) No. 4 Sieve gC Clay Mixtures Sand Sw Well -Graded Sands, Grav6lly And Clean Sand Sands, Little Or No Fines More Than Sandy (little or no fines) �Sp Poorly -Graded Sands, Gravelly 50% Material Soils Sands, Little Or No Fines Larger Than More Than SM No. 200 Sieve 50% Coarse S ..ds 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) 1 111111 inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flotr,Silty- IL11 I 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 M/M, CI Gravelly Clays. Sandy Clays. Silty Clays, Lean Soils Clays Organic Silts And Organic Silty Clays Of Low Plasticity H Inorganic Sifts. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire More Than Mh Sand Or Silty . Soils 50% Material Smaller Ttan Sitts Liquid Limit And Inorganic Clays Of High No. 200 Sieve Greater Than 50 Clays 5�-�Ch Plasticity. Fat Clays Size Z �oh Organic Clays Of Medium To High Plasticity. Organic Silts Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils Highly Organic Soils h r___P I With High Organic Contents Topsoil 4- -11 4 4- 41 Humus And Duff Layer Fill om 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 Indicate borderline soil classification. C TORVANE READING, tsf 2' O.D. 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 T SUBSEQUENT GROMDWATER LEVELW/ DATE Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND 0%.� . Proj. No. 100751 Date Apr. 2002 tPlate Al " Tesi'Pit Log Project Narne: Pepperwood Sheet of I 1 1 Job No. 10075 Logged by: T KCS Date: 3128/02 Test Pit No.: TP-1 Excavation Confactor Universal.Land Ground Surface Elevation: 420' Wes: General Notes W cL E Cn CL E ca U) Surface CAxxfdions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass 13.3 16.4 15-4 14.5 ...... 2 3 4 6 7 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -30% fines ML Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist SM -mottlin t 5' a Gray s& SAND, medium dense to dense, moist Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavafion- NOTES: Elevations estimated by a TopograThic Site Plan provided by the Client- Survey by Group Four Inc. ated 1/6/99. Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Proj. No- 10075 I Dwn GLS 12002 Date Apn checked KCS Date 4/10/02 Subsurfam-corKlitions depicted represent our observations at the tirne and location of this wp"ory hole. modified by engineering tests, analysis and are not necessarily representative of other firnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of M=L'=#�4 — *hie U� Test Pit Log Project Narrie. Pepperwood Sheet Of 1 1 1 Job No. 10075 Logged by- 1 KCS Date: 3/28/02 Test Pit No.: TP-2 Emcavation Contactor- Universal Land Ground Surface Elevation: 424' Notes: General Notes W -2 f @L E CL -; —CL E E Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 10": ferns 11. 9 T --- .... 2 3 4 5 6 7 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -roots may extend to 3' mottling at 4 SM Brown silty SAND, dense, moist -15% fines Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Pr4 No- 10075 _FDZ_ GLS ' _F�;�e Apri!2002 aiecked KCS Date 4/10/02 A3 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the tffm and location of this wploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and lu ,��7=.a,re n r=s anly representative of other tunes and locations. We cannot accept responsblity forthe use or interpretation by others of t.41 'L Test Pit Log Project Narne: Pepperwood Job No. 10075 Logged by- T KCS Date. 3/28/02 Test Pit No-: TP-3 Excavation Contactor Universal Land Ground Surface Elevation: 416' Notes: Generai Notes W 'a .0 E_ La >. -M CL ..; 0 LIL E a) E Surface, Concritions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": bees and fems 10.6 7.1 2 3 4 5 6 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist -with some organics roots -mottling and iron o)dde staining at 3' SIM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavabon. Fx-mlh Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Prq. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apri12002 aecked KCS ___T_ Date - 4/10/02 ptate A4 'X�Iidw tAnKut"Ib Uw1uteu represent our ouservaDons a ine wne am mmon oT ints e)9watory nole. moctiieu by engineering tests, ana" and LW2�!� .��are njr=s�!nly representative of offier tknes and.Wcations. We cannot accept responsitAty for the use or inteVetation by offiers of Test Pit Log Project Nwne. Pepperwood Sheet or Job No. 10075 Logged by: KCS Date: 3/28/02 Test Pit No.: TPA Exoavarion Contactor Universal Land Ground Surface Elevation: 404' Notes: General Notes W 0/0) cx E Surface conditions: Depth of Topsoil & SodV: brush debris 11.2 7-7 16.9 2 3 4 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 e)cavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington ".No. 10075 Down. GLS Date April 2002 che&ed KCS Date 4/10/02 Plate A5 buosurtace conations ciepictea represent our oWervations at Vie brne and location of this enftatory txAe, nxxffied by engineering tests, anatysis and are not neoessanty representative of other tam and locations. We cannot accept responsbility for the use or interpretation by others of 0-4 - +hk L-- Test Pit Log Project Narne: Pepperwood Sheet d Job No- 16075 Logged by- T KCS Date: 3/28/02 Test Pit No-: TP-5 Excavation Contactor- Universal Land Ground Surface Elevation: .395' Notes: General Notes W 4) .9-- .0 CL E CL E 0 c) -0 E Z) >� Surface conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 7': grass 10-8 10-8 ...... ... 2 3 4 6 7 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist SM Brawn 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 e)dsbng grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Prci- No. 10075 TIZ—_ GLS Date April'2002 checked KCS Date 4/10/02 plate A6 subsurface conditiom depicted represent our observations at the firrie and location of this eVloratory hole, moffied by engineering tests, muilysis and are not necessarily reVesentalme of other Wes and locations. Welcarinot accept fesponsbility for the use or interpretation by others of M�M=L�aM�i — 4hi. I- TesfPit Log Project Narne: Pepperwood Sheel Of 1 1 1 Job No- 10075 Logged by- KGS Date- 3/28/02 Test Pit No.: TP-6 Exc"oon Contactor Universal Land Ground Surface Elevation: 395' Wes: General Notes W M 0 :2 cL E E " E CL CL 0 E Ca 0 CO E Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass 2 3 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 eAsting grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavation. FA-Mh Consultants Inc. & Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Prej. No. 10075 T�Z_ GLS -FDate April 2002 checked KCS Date 4/10/02 Plate A7 Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations ad the tirne and location of this exploratory hole, modified by er9neenng tests, anatysis and are not necessarily representabve of other times and location& We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by allms of #-4 — #I,;. I— Test Pit Log Project Nam. Sheet Of Pepperwood 1 1 1 Job No. Logged by- 1 Dale� Test Pit No.: 10075 KCS 3128102 TP-7 Excavation Contactor Ground Su rface Elevatimin: Universal Land 409 Wes: W —0 Z E A! ') -6 Surface conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod T: grass General Notes (0/0) Cx .0 E CL cL LL. E CU 0 'Q (0 E >' &0 :) CO SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist SP Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist 5-9 2 3 4 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist Test pit terminated at 5.5 feet below e)dsfing grade. No groundwater encountered during exravation. Test Pit Log Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Proj. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apn12002 checked KCS we 4/1.0102 Plate A8 %�ULJ;Pul law %AXKUUTA1bUtqJRAt:UfqxeW"1Uui ouserwanons axuteumeanakxauonoTmseVoratorynm, MOCNOW by engffxw" tests, analysis and f lity for the use or interpretation by others of .,Igment are r=ssa _* representatm of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsb GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFJNG 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 groundv%eter 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 modifv.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 foundati ' on or earthwork unless we are retained to review the construction drawings and specifications, and to provide construction observation and testing. Earth Consultants, Inc. zi 7 . . . . . . . . ..... ME - PAW WW411 .41 Z'4 f4 U m 7�77 PA K -j. pvp�- AT S :.CA Fo Eli LIM I I] UK A ST A., L S sr,: �d 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. Earth Consultants, Inc. Ge"ectufical Engineers, Geaogisls & Environtnesual Sci=biSIS Vicinity Mao Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS Date April 2002 Proj. No. 10075 Checked RAC Date 4/12102 Plate I 3W 380 370 360 370 , 360 350 i 13W360 370 380 5. 'A A I TF V: < 390 0. -7- 92 T P 7 IITP- to;; f4 ATP� h Y 3 7' 19 .............. . . . . . . . . . . . 41 LEGEND I TP-1—w— Approximate Location of ECI Test Pit, Proj. No. E-10075, Mar. 2002 Subject Site Existing Building 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. -M 400— J> 420 Approximate Scale 0 50 100 200% 4fO 3WEarth Consultants, Inc. Geolechnical Eng&"N3:rs, Gec4ogisfs & Envirantnenud Scientists Test Pit Location Plan Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Drwn. GLS Date April 2002 Pro� No. 10075 1 Checked RAC I Date 4/12102 Kate 2 6 inch min. Slope To Drain ID 4 inch min. Diameter. Perforated Pipe Wrapped in Drainage Fabric 2 inch min. / 4 inch max- 12 inch min. SCHEMATIC ONLY - NOT TO SCALE NOT A CONSTRUCTION DRAWING 18 inch min. 2 inch min - 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 flexible corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing lines. Wrap with Mirafi 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent- 41 P. " ' " "( i Earth Consultants InC Gc"Cct�" EngVMCM GODIO� & EfWftGFVTVff" -SCiCMISK Prol. No.- 10075 1 Drwn. CLS I Date Apr. 2002 TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Checked RAC Date 4/12/02 Plate 3 Test Pit Log Project Name: -T Pepperwood Sheet `4 Of 1 Job No. 10075 Logged by: KCS Date: 3/28/02 Test Pit No-: TP-8 Excavation Contactor Universal Land Ground Surface Ele-Mion: 416 Notes: General Notes W .0 E - CL U- E 00 M (n (0 E D >' 0) Surface conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass 21.2 11.3 2 3 4 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose to medium dense, moist SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist Test pit terminated at 4.5 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater encountered during excavation. Earth Consultants Inc. Gnok�-Iudcal Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Prcj. No- 10075 Dwn- GLS Date Apri12002 checked KCS Date 4/10/02 Plate A9 butisurtaoe coriddioris depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)ploratory hole, modified by engkieering tests, anaVsis and 1��. 1��ar4e ly representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsbility for the use or interpretation by others of Project Narne: Pepperwood Sheet of Job No. Logged by- Date: Test Pit No.: Excavation Contactor: Universal Land Ground Surface Ele—�: 354� Surfam Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6!': trees and blackberries 10.8 12.6 40 7 SM Brown silly SAND, loose to medium dense, moist SP -SM Grades to gray poorly graded SAND with silt medium dense, moist -becomes with gravel at 5' Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavation- Fzrth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Prui. No. 10075 Tz_ GLS I Date April 2002 rChecked KCS I Date 4/10/02 Plate Al 0 Wmrfaoe corKlitions dWided represent our observations at the tine and location of this e)#oratory hole, modidied by engineefing tests, analysis and are not necessarily representatNe of other trnes and locations. We cannot accept responsbilidy for the use or interpretation by others of Pit Log Proiect Nam. Pepperwood Stieet Of 1 1 1 Job No. 10075 1 Logged by: KCS Date: 3128/02 Test Pit No-: TP-10 Exavation Contactor Universal Land Ground Surfaoe Elevation: 359' Wes: General Notes W 0 z cL E :S CL cL —; LL E cc Ca 0 a E >' CO Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": fems and trees 8-5 I If 2 3 4 5 6 SM Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist SM Gray silty SAND. with gravel, medium dense, moist -becomes dense at 5' Test pit terminated at 6.0 feet below e)dsting grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavafion. Earth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington Prq. No. 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apri]2002 checked KCS I Date 4/10/02 -F;;; Al I' bubsurface condlitions depicted represent our observations at the tirne and location of this e)#omtory holi-, modified by engineering tests, analysis and are not necessarily representative of offier tffnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by offiers of Test Pit Log Projed Narne- Pepperwood Sheet of Job No. 10075 Logged by- KCS Date: 3/28/02 Test Pit No.: TP-1 1 Excavation Contactor: Universal Land Ground Surface EJE�.ion: 356' Notes: General Notes W —0 r-,a CL E >1 E CU 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 SM Gray silty SAND with gravel, dense, moist Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater encountered during e)cavation. Eafth Consultants Inc. Test Pit Log Pepperwood Edmonds, Washington No- 10075 Dwn. GLS Date Apri]2002 cheded KCS we 4/10/02 T-;;e Al 2 bulmnaoe conditions deptated represent our observations at the tim and locatm of this wploratory hole, modified by engmeering tests, analysis and j!'x f4� representative of other times and locations- We cannot accept responsbrity for the use or inteTretation by others of APPENDIX 8 LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS E-10075 Earth Constiltants, 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 Constiltants, Inc. . ..... 777- 7 C. I b , PERMIT NO: 0051 City of Edmonds - PERMIT EXPIRES, SIDE SEWER PERMIT Address of Construction: Property Tax Account Pa Attach copies of all access and utility easements Verified and Approved by ()wner and/or Contractor: 12, V—nA C,k e Contractor License XSingle Family F� Multi -Family (No. of Units P,,C,omrne'rc'i'kl`(No. of Un s Fj Public Permit #: —d 4�� Invasion into City *Right -of Way: El Yes XNo *RW Construction Permit Cross other "Private Property: F—I'Yes No "Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement. V- ej- Owner/Contractor Owner trattq-,§igriature and ackn6w gernerit statement: D polf-16on By signing,for this1p6mit I certi'�y that 1,have read the City's public handout entitled ide,�ewe� !;pecifications,�a-�n:d,,s�all,comply', ithN'a"i`1-`C ity4 requirements outlined therein. 'y 91 CA.L;LDIA1L-A-D1G (1-800-4'YW-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION 2 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extensionga7bw 24 HOUR NOTICE REQUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REOUESTS FOR OFFICE USE ONLY ... . ... .... . Permit Fee $ Repair Fee$ Issued By:_ Trunk Charge $ 2 !�;� . Date Issued: Assessment Fee $ .. I Receipt No:,. a1: . ...... City Permit Surcharge Fee 45.00 Total Fees Paid $ :7215 NOTE: IF JOB SITE IS NOT READY FOR INSPECTION WHEN INSPECTOR ARRIVES A $45 RE -INSPECTION FEE WILL BE CHARGED. Job Site Ready YES :. NO Date: Initial: Partial Inspection: Partial Inspection: Date: Initial: FINAL INSPECTION APPROVED: Date: ZCZj!2-� Initial: As -built to Street File: 1,� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE 1,� White Copy: File Oreen Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant L;temp-,bIdg-.forms,ssperTnitj Ig4/00 .0 20905 PIONEER WAY 6" Sleeve GARAGE Under Footing , 5-N * Bend 6"-4" Reducer 6' Deep I 0 4" C/O @ 2' Deep CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS - BUILTS ADDRESS: 20905 PIONEER WAY HOMEOWNER: CONTRACTOR: GEORGE BRANDEL CAJUN DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY: SCALE: PERMIT NO. 9/26/05 1 1. ABILA NTS 110051 ED* 0 CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS- BUILT ADDRESS HOMEOWNER 20905 PIONEER WAY BRANDEL CUSTOM HMS CONTRACTOR SCALE CAJUN NTS DATE DRAWN WATERLINE 9/26/05 IBY 1. ABILA NO. 2005-0645 SOOZ/9E/6 Z/6 Yi �K Tr A, I-- orb", Mv ci _Z*r W - 4-W, -.e o ;a L.C) C) 41 T jkk V"j L k MX dot 4, z 4 161- "A n 5P .10 V Q4 , Ok DATE RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ER NAME/NAMF-OF WSkESS I A I MAILING ADDRESS ,xim I -q Svj CITY Zip TELEPHONE wtqmjcb,� 4ma it'S- 7(O.Z4W U .. �\W�\ E ADDRESS CITY E ZIP TETIL IL . ......... =CBL ERMIT EXPIRES USE ZONE PERMIT �PMBE SUITE/APT# ADDRESS tij t9 LOT NO. LID NO. 2-0 PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. m7c LID FEE $ TESCP Approved PU13LIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Required EXISTING I--,' PROPOSED Street Use Permit Rsq'd Inspection Required Side.alk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION "Ofe FT Underground winng requir a METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED 4- 1A 11 1 1 A i YES 13 NO 13 OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE I IWA111121�1) -A`)VJ2Ki01J(nWea] �1 z z 0 z -biniNm ]_ 1A LLb'M1Vfi-L_ Liny" I Im U VLKI hlk2n A�_ � ? tk INEERING REVIEWED BY DATE nelk cc ADDRESS c5-0- FIRE., REVIEWED BY DATE U. CAD(S- ITY Z, TELEPHONE 0 7 VARIANCEORCU�: SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION REO'D BOND POSTED STATIf LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKEb 13Y YES ONO $ SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT SIGN, AREA ALLOWED PROPOSED ., HEIGHT -ALLOWED PROPOSED -j PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT�PARCEL'�NO 4 a y .j EXP x , % "LL4S NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH LOT COVERAGE ALLQ!"POSED REQUIRED SETBACK I IS (FT.) RONT.. ' SIDE 'REAR "PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) FRONT- L/R SI E REAR X COMPL ANCE OR r7 ADDITION -COMMERCIAL' 10 3D!7) h z CHANGE OF USE 04. .0 PARKING REO'D PROVIDED IL4;:a LOT AREA. I PLANNING REVIEWEbz6V DATE T�Lo, REMODEL MULTIFAMILY.', SIGN, - REPAIR GRADING FENC E, c 4019 YDS X - FT) JL1 0,_ K:4 4 -2,50- OTHER DEMOLISH TANK GARAGE RETAINING WALLL �IFIESPRINiKLER �V CARPORT [1.,ROCKERY:., `W.'FIRE ALARM. Z L� (TYPE OF USE BUSINESS 0 R ACTIV7 - CHECKED BY Typt 0 R. 0 E' OCCUPAaj �F ORO UPE NUMBER NUMBER OF CRITICAL SPECIAL INSPECTION REQUIRED OCCUPANT LOAD OF 0 STORIES DWELLING UNITS AREAS NUMBER'OC3L 1'1%4 &Y ES' D WORK TO -BE DONE -,��dvvr4vw` MSCIBE REMARKS PROGRESS INSPE&IONS PER UBC 108tISC10911AC109 FINALINSPECTION REO'D PF* V 14311, V*b 1T 0 VALUATION & ��76) 1"77-1 Description !-�F�E Description FEE Plan Check )27f57q State Surcharge (NHEAT SOURCE G��WG % LOT PE % , % �q, h - ,BuildinglPermit '_` — City Surcharge \61�s 4f Pi -17, 't —1 4�a VESTED DATE C) PLAN CHEC�� , P _ j _Iumbing� Base Fee _2 Mechanical THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE r�'kl, SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review PER MITAPPUCATION: 1180DAYS CL PERMIT LIMIT! I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS Engr. Inspection SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION APPLICANT, ON BEHALF 0 - F HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit N INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF 2 EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt # ALL CLAJMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE TO M A DEEMED ODIFX WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. TbtaIAmt.DueE_j 571 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION! . Recording Fee Receipt # 16- HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HA VE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF 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 VIOLAT ON OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is ackn,"Idged In space provided. WORKMEN!S COMPENSATIO=RANCE AND RCW 18.27. 0 Cl S I NAT DATE DATE SIGNED (425) 4 Jos 771-0220 W 1k, REL BY ArremdN M 1333 ITIS UNLAWFULTO(JSEOR OCCUPYABUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL INSPECTIQN HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OFOCCU- F w W_ V ;RIGINAL-FILE PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110. - YELLOW SP�613R PINK - OWNER - GOLD,41ESSOR 09/03 -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES PRESS HARD A M M, > 4- 06 buw rx M�WAW CAP z. raw 4rr fim �Aw CnAd RjLr ar isAgf-mw- 4W'IY r a Lsive .95s,- 314 vo 02 _q avz- X cl Arow es jJ6 J80— \,70F yy G hy >--vPAQZ ;A leb, 3, F r- N... V5* 7- 60 _521 'A", UJIL1.119- 4: pFrA tow IN 2 __2 7V 5.66 PA. -SF4G) N SF (N LN x xf� f 'T STEEP \2_ tij �01- PR 0 05 r �2 VOT, lot - Iff"VX11, 4 Ng 4 9 1 1 5' ACCE8s m 73VII L EW ON 0, la Gwr v 408 7 I I JL' 5 C Crw. S III . 0 - 09 \ IL_ V 4 JOIN-r---TJSE DWY —E QM AS ENT —LOTS 8&9 7651S r 196 L4.- Arl 4 .4 L @L L it 39 1091W W A Af 0",40ra IZZ 3.3 S A/ 4W- Arm- ow-00e- C! L 1% X5 S'S4MURr -5rAof 7 4 I O\ \�SBL :!E 12, A P s owl A 2 F ENT 3� SF 4C_ \42\ SCAPIE ,9RAIN,4a R C .1 W9 Ar,e N 2,95".021 4p 4 > 00 /0ox 197 or - - — ROPOSEE L 17� T7 -1.3 00( lbl /d�4 < - tF p, ORlv, AQ2 11 71w- HvM_ fL jf� / / 6. 858 SF--, ' �4 -_ 6-)� I f_A_fF_/, 7 J00 00, 40. N SEA 14100,0 45' k/oz. 47 PC 5_5 5,699 sk 4v JP4 /.P 0V4Rj,rS & F4 mar RWRI &7 4V % N 63 MV7 1".:J 42 /2 -ReO N sw v /I J4,742 "2;v AA a 6000, < 4 4.043 Sf', SF- nwr c Wbwl 11 r rcwc v 04 4.77)1- El a�PU H E R / C 0 N T R;, r" - 0 �-� i3" R E S F 0 NIS i-'z � '-' LEE FOR EROSION CONTROL AND D A-KAGE MAINTAIN PLAT INSTALLIED EROSION C014TROL ACCEP11ABL-` TIGHTLINE MATERIAL SDR 35 SCH 40 N- 12 F81n HAN11.0114 10' UTI L I TY E=-ASEEEMENT APRROVED AS NOTED 13Y ENGINEERIN Date: _ �ue— FOOTING DRAINS NOT TO BE TIED INTO DETENTION SYSTEM 35-0 02A gf�' 0/v .1067 vc 190 (9 9/1 6 36 10' PRPE FOR �OTS 18 — 22 ZOO' 3(,4 I K4-f 00 Y,412.05 OF E r-vcny�, 012 5 10 15 20 50 40 50 q F-1 L07:20 8 9 *5 6'23 " e,F-F- 67ENEF;Z^L NOTF-5 er-,^LE: I"=20' Zonepgx>-o,,I- j I Comer Fla&_ Setbacks Required Actual Front Sides Rear Other vo-LE4. Height WATER & SEWER APPROVED BY PLANNING INSPECTIONS REQD. c CALL 425-771-0220 EXT. 1326 's AODRES5 XXXX PIONEER- VqAY LE(:5AL LOT 20, MAF->RONA COVE 1:;)ESr--.RIPTION: SITE AREA: 4,023 SOUARE FEET ZC:)NINC:;,: f=LANNEI:;) UNIT OEVELGIPMENT z HEIc�HT CALCULATION (BAE)EO f=f;;-:'OM EX15TIN(� 67RAOE) 0 A= 355' M -) 2' / 0 6. 2. 441p- 0 a -P, Cp 564' 0 - C, 555' CA 0 566, 0 1440/4= 560.00' AVERAC-7E EX15TINC:;, (�RAOE= 560.00' AC,TUAL BUILE�11N(�5, HEI(�HT= 504.50' MAXIMUM E3UILF,>INO HEIC-;,HT (25')-505.00' SUR\/E'*rOR TO PRO\/II:;)E E3ENr-,HMARK MOST APROPRIATE FOR HEIOHT VERIFIC�ATION) -IMPERVIOUS AREAS RESIZ;)ENGE N1 1440 5(SZUAR-E FEET GVRf:;) PORGHE5 PATIO NAL<NA'I'S TOTAL 556 SOUARE FEET 120 150UAf;;"--'E FEET 100 SOUARE FEET 2,216 SOUARE FEET LOT COVERAr-7E ( LOT COVERAC-7,E IS BASED UPON 35% OF ENTIRE PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT) 1440 SOUARE FEET OF f='ROPOSEI:;) LOT CO\/ERAC--7E (INr-,LUI:;)E!5 STRUCTURE, COVEREO FORC-,HES, 1:?EC,<S OVER 50") STREET FILE JUL 13 2005 BUILDING DEPARTMENT CITY OF EDMONDS -t- pc-� RES' U JUL 1 3,� , 405 "UlIDI"G DEP "" cl, Ty OF ED j� 7- M,OlVDSE" STREET FILE