20909 PIONEER WAY.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
12822
20909 PIONEER
WAY
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: e A10 7
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICALAREAS:, —DETERMINATION: E]Conditional Waiver ZKtudyRequired OWaiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:— 14 i�� —,ZN",
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: —
PARKING AGREEMENTS DA:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED F1
PERMITS (OTHER):
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: 4
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:
SEWER LID FEE $:
SHORT PLAT FILE:---\
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED: L
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:.
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
LOT:
LID #:
BLOCK:
LATEMP\DST's\Forms\Street File Checklist.doc
ci , ty of Edmonds
PERMIT NO:
PtRMIT EXF RES �)Azlz)
Q'Irnr QXW117111 PVIDX41T
0 9
4-
LID #
Address of Construction:
Property Tax Account Parcel No. 0 1 0 0 S� 0 C)
Attach copies of all access and -utility easements Verified and Approved b
0 2 q4Z Ck/\
Owner and/or Contractor: — , zf- (jo- N
' . A 110C,14 I I Z L (i Building Permit Kd"&41_&
Contractor License #: . - 9) V_
Single Family
Multi -Family (No. of Units
Commercial (No. of Units
F� Public
Invasion into City *Right -of Way: 0 Yes No
*RW Con strUction Permit
Cross other.* '� Private P roperty: FlYes IZNo
**Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement.
Owner/Contracto'r
no dgement, s4atement:
Owner or contfactor s gaa=And ack ' wle
By signing for this permit I certify that I have read the City's'public handout entitled
ide Sewer Specifications, and shall comply with all City requirements outlined therein.
�1-2--2-A - 0(4
Date
W CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-421.q�,5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION W
9 FOR INSPECTION CALL 425-771-0220 extensiodl __Q_kW_
24 HOUR NOTICE REOUIRED FOR ALL INSPECTION REOUESTS
.... .. FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
Permit Fee $A0 Repair Fee $ Issued By:
Trunk Charge $ Date Issued:
Assessment Fee $ ReceiptNo:A9.
City Permit Surcharge Fee A5.00 Total Fees Paid �_-7 75
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:
Partiallnspection.-JkEge�-MM2�fd 0 11MVIA11d C-r -4 Date&�d_clnitial:
Partial Inspection: Date: Initial:
FINAL INOtCTION APPROVED: Date: 'Initial: As�built to Street File:
t� PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON. JOB SITE t-
White Copy: File Greep Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
L;temp;bldg;forms;sspennitjlg4/00
E.D*
0
7'
6'-
9.
0
0
0
co) 0 K 0 0 m X
0 � 2-) 0 M 0
z m - -u M c
m 0 z
r— 0
m m
0
0
z
0 0
-n ;u
0
0
T Z
M M
;u
2.5'
CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT
ADDRESS: PERMIT
20909 PIONEER WAY NO: 9949
CONTRACTOR: HOMEOWNER: SCALE:
BRANDEL CUST. HOMES ANNA THATCHER I NTS
ATE INSPECTED INSPECTED BY: DATE DRAWN: DRAWN BY:
9/20/051J. McCONNELLI 7/27/06 1 J. BRONDER
120909�
10, 77P"ET WALL
4- (;/Q (tv
2' DEEP
LAMPHOLE IN DWY
22' BEND
6'
y 4.5- DEEP
W/ G.I. LAMPHOLE UOVER
(;/0 (g) P/L
W/ G.I. LAMPHOLE U NOVER
PIONEER WAY
0 E.D *, CITY OF EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS- BUILT
0
A D D R E Z. HOMEOWNER
20909 PIONEER WAY _BRANDEL CUSTOM HOMES
'CALE
CONTRACTOR
NTS
DATE DRAWN PERMIT
at 1890 03/24/2005 BY SIBREL 03/30/2005 NO. 9949
A
(n N
cn
cn
0
0
z 0
z —0
0
r-
m
7'
0 m
u M
0
-4.
a cl,
7'
rn X
>
z
m 0
X
ILI 01--i
2.5'
4' --T
0 c: 0 0
0 T -n X
0-0
;u m
m X
z -< m
Eq* F EDMONDS SIDE SEWER AS
CITY 0
0
ADDRESS HOMEOWNER
20909 PIONEER WAY -BRANDEL CUSTOM HOMES
CONTRACTOR SCALE
DATE DRAWN
10/27/05 BY SIBREL
NTS
PERMIT
NO. 9949
m
4'
1.5
'm
PIONEER WAY
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
ADDRESS HOMEOWNER
- 20909 PIONEER WAY _BRANDEL CUSTOM HOMES
CONTRACTOR SCALE
NTS
DATE DRAM PERMJT
03/25/2005 BY SIBREL NO. 2004-1078-
/2-
In,
tu
Op
CITY ffyl)MONDS WA-rER AS -BUILT
a,17, , _.�_ — zo 29
ADDRESS U/
Z9 9
I I too" %4a4��/
.NUMB�R
HOMEOWNER
t
JD-
CONTRACTOR'
DATE
_-72
DRAWN
BY �L41
44_9�whl' Earth ConsLdtants, Inc
UGeo(echraical Fhglieer' C'Mmias & 01%i�m"Irdl samfis4s
Caistftclm TeSM9 & 1CB0 / WAHO 111'S)q'.1WA1 senices
1805 136th Place N. E., Suite 201: B ellevue, WA 98005
Bellevue (425) 643-3780 - Toll Free (888) 739-6670
FAX (425) 746-0860
DAILY. FIELD REPORT
Project Job Location
)"6-� T14
General Contractor
"'P'04E)e L
Grading Contractor
General Contractor's
/'SFH7-
Grading Foreman
Field Rep.
Job No.
Page of
Report No.
Q-MM,
160 7.;--
'Z
Time On Site
Time Off Site
Date
Day of Week
�_'/ Y,
3'�' /-/,—
/— / "�
�
Travel -rime
Miles
Weather
/1 C,
VS—,
I
Permit No.
Hrs. Charged
Visitors
Client/Owner
itendent
Received Unchecked By
Checked By
Date
Are approved Plans/Permits on -site 0 Yes No If No, contact the building department or e xplain below:
Project No. Permit No.
&, 1?E lul Er-1 ILE& WA L cAl <./ 7-;E 7!:--, /-DAC/ld- 14— 7-�C57—
/:c,7zA1r, C:.,,- /6�7-,f, c_,r 4c.:'7_5
wrrI4 A (<op sHc-wED TPTII-i 7e-- EE ,-K- Nolv-
LA//7N �S7-4NL 21-70-0 ?��SF
94Te,1,:11w A:55 LC(io.E_�r,6�6
RECEIVED
AN 212005
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
COPY'fo: CONTINUED ON NEXT PAGiE
ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS
OWNER/CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE
FOR EFOSION ND DAMA`
10' UTI L I 7r
EA51EHMENT
MAINTAIN PLAT INSTALLED EROSION CONTROL
3
ADDRE55
Ib (��' -
L -CAL
E
f 5
;
DE5CRIPTION.
0 , �60
51TE AREA:
XXXX PIONEER k4Ar
LOT 15, MADR.ONA COVE
5,566 5GUARE FEET
Z ON I N r--;,: - PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT
HEIC�HT CAL(:-,ULATION (BA5ED FROM EX15TINr-., 6,FZZADE)
A= 555'
4v
D= 555'
I425/4= 55-7.00'
AVERA&E EX15T]Nc�i, C�RADE= 35'7.00'
AC,TUAL BUILDIN6, HEI6.,HT= 552.24'
MAXIMUM BUILDIN(� HEI0HT (25')
+. 7' FROM VARIANCE #\/-05-104= 502.70'
5UF;Z\/E'rCF;Z TO PROVIDE E3F-Nr-HMAi-Z< M05T
APROPRIATE FOR HEIC�HT \/ERIFI(:-,ATION)
I PERVIOU5 AREA5
,4PAZOY, 6v RE51DENr-E V41 1602 SOUARE FEET
12 9'/"'T"' /�<-r/) r-\1RD PORCHES
N 89*56'23"LE e r-(Un 0,() 51 re.
'1 '0
4-r serro'o ,
OF tar fowtv J30 ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLIIJETIO
0 12 5 10 15 w J301 356 MATERIAL NAL<NAYS
,APPROVED AS NOTED 9URI IF:91 IF SDR 35 TOTAL
BY EN921NEERIqG LOT la
I ==:q H 40
556 5OUARE FEET
120 50UARE FEET
100 5OUARE FEET
2,435 SOUARE FEET
_.5EE (�ENERAL NOTEI5 5r-ALE. LOT r-C\/EF;ZAr-7E
12 ( LOT C I OVERA&E 15 BA5ED UPON 5596 OF ENTIRE
--Fg"'HANCOR PLANNED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
(,w� 1662 SOUARE FEET OF PFZOP05ED LOT COVERA&E
/,Vol&*-r65 me-,�&,V-r (INr-LUDE5 5TF;ZUr-TUFP-E, r-OVEREO PORr-HE5, F->Er-r-5 OVER 50
E)n-)Tt-v6 6a4ve-
WATER & SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D.
CALL 425-771-0220 EXT. 1326
APPROVED BY PLANNING
,21
4c-
Zone �— 8 _ Comenj FlagLi_
Setbacks Required Actual
.2
Front —10,
Sides ---s
Rear lot
Other 11a, L4 �)a-
Heig1q
5 ---e 0 6 T4 (e- 0,V 4-/ felt
FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO -
DETENTION SYSTEM RE�tEIVED
C 9--tpy DEC - 6 2004
"IT17 ky
el �/- L-$"- PERMIT COUNTER
cg&�� fwap;R�? a��
Mad rd A 1- 6�
C6 V
PLANNING DATA
0 ff j , R
NAME: 1)rq-,dk( CL,5T�---, -DATE: t I It 70
PLAN CHK#: 0
SITE ADDRESS: ?-Oqoq p�-'d-Ace'-
PROJECT DESCRIPTION:
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?: 0 / No
e
MAP PAGE: CORNER LOT: FLAG LOT:
ZONING: CRITICAL AIREAS DETERMINATION M. 7q
1AStudvReauired:6/mkTJ f0-Qa-171.1P-0d,-M,
LJWaiver
LJConditional Waiver
SEPA DETERMINATION: fAOA15 r�5vfd 3/IY.4�
L3 Fee
13 Checklist
L3APO list w/ notaried form
L3 (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
U Exempt
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks:
Street:__K_LLeft Side: Right Side: Rear:
Actual Setbacks:
Street: - Left Side: Right Side: Rear:
Street map checked for additional setback required? (Yes I No
Q DETACHED STRUCTURES:
q
L3 ROCKERIES:
L3FENCEsrr.RELLISES: - K61\e
L3 BAY WINDOWS / PROJECTING MODULATION: 0 Vk
L3 STAIRS I DECKS: 0 K
PARKING: Required: I Actual:
LOT AREA: 5W
k)6 0�- (-Ovtl.�e � CA t/?fk
PC,- 5a
BUILDING HEIGHT:
Datum Point: 40 1e e/ VrtV Datum Elevation:
=Lrot
Maximum Allowed: Actual Height: &301-
A.D.U.CREATED?: N /Yes) V- 0.3 -(0Y
SUBDIVISION: PRO - Oo-L - (7
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED:
OTHER:— V a&L.') o. 7" tv'(4k-1 overOL�e
Plan Review Bir
NewBPPIamingDataFomLD0C -
Pi
0
oEDICAT4bN
KNOW Of MEN FIX.11,11ESE IPRESENTS THAT WE. THE UNDERSIGNED OWNER IN FEE SIMPLE AND
MORMAMES OF.7HE LAND Mf=�;LA
.... C ZDj DO HEREBY ECLAIIE THIS PLAT AND E.I.AIE
E STREETS AND EASEMENTS OR ATEWR PUBLIC
----PR;)TF-'l':EFIjUl�fiQ.ENlS .0 AAID
IGVi tN THIS PLAT THE USE THEREOF FOR ANY AND ALL PUBLIC
1
PURPO ALSO THE III T"VIA E ALL NECESSARY SLOPES FOR CUTS OR FILLS UPON
IEr
E
THE 'CR-AND TRACTS SHOWN HE $ON. IN THE REASONABLE GRADING OF ALL STREETS
SrWN HEREON. ALSC6THE RIGHT 0 ACCESS OVER THE LOTS AND TRACTS TO THE
� LITY EASEMENTS AT %NY TME FOI THE STATED PURPOSES.
PHOENIX DEOI�4;MENT.JNC.. IN DEDICATING THIS PLAT OF MADRONA COW. HAS DESIGNATED
TRACT! 'AS COMMON.OPEN SPACE AND CRITICAL AREA PRO"IEC-14
ljQ95 AND 993
A D. RACTS 9986MD 999 AS CCIAMON OPEN SPACE AND RE REATION TRACTS AND TRACT 996
HE TH
t:�A LANDSCAPE BUFFER FOR ME USE AND BENEFIT OF E RESIDENTS OF MAORO14A COVE.
THESE TVA�'TS' SO DIES
R�GIN,%;EM
EDgE
.rSpj W I�ATIED HEREBY FOR THE USE OF THE GENERAL
PURL' ',* T 'E THE �A "A COVE HOMEOWNER'S ASSOCIATION,
AS 4NOUMALY IR E DECLARATION OF.COVENANTS. CONDMONS AND RESTRICTIONS
FORC=lf?%WnI:WABLE HERETO AND RECgFDM UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE
NO. —, RECORDS aNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASH!NGTON.
WHICH DqL44ENTS ARE HEREBY INC.ORRORA�ED MD DE A PART OF NIS PLAT
THIS PLAT , IS SUB4-J TO THE.Dt(;-ARAM0N!OF GO N TS CON ITIONS -0 RESTRICTIONS
FOR MADRONA COW. APPLICABLE HERETO AP40 REC�qE. U�DER AUlITOR'l FILE
NO OHOMISH CWN".-W
F�SHINGTON.
C R'S C=
WHi0H DOCUMENI ARE EjElY INCORqXTE`D D, 'NE,4.�A:�T. NIS
IN WNESS WHERE�F, WE HERERT �ft; OUR HANOVAND '"S 'NIS NY
OF 2DO4.
;T,.*J(Z,. A WASH PORATION.
PHOENIX DEVELOPMEN
Ell.
ITS: �iaiw igor v I c.V- —Ph ESI A�r-'
ASIA EUROPE AMERICAS BANK
MADRONA COVE
SECTION 19, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
APPROVAL$
EXAM;" IS /0 r#'DAY OF I'f'#AC'y
2004.
EOMCINO�r CITY ENGINEER
EXAMINED AND APPROVED NIS lb"�I` DAY OF
2 004.
IDOMSW4:1�1��
OWS PCANNING DIRECTOR
OA-
EXAMINED NO APPROVED THIS /V DAY OF 04421'fW
Z�,dtm�:�
2004.
MAYA. CITY Y ONIONDS
ATTEST. CITY CLERK
HOLD HARMLESS AGREEMENT
OWNERS AND ALL PERSONS HAVING ANY PRESENT OR SUSSEOIJEMT OWNERSHIP INTEREST
IN THESi LANDS. AND THE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS OF OWNERS OR OMER PARTIES
HAVING MY SAID INTEREST. HEREBY AGREE THAT THE CITY OF EDMONDS SHALL BE HELD
HARMLESS IN ALL RESPECTS MOM ANY AND A CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES FOR INJUNCTIVE
RELIEF WHICH WAY BE OCCASIONED NOW OR IN THE FUTURE TO ADJACENT LAND OR
IMPROVEMENTS By REASON OF THE CONSTRUCTION. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE Or
THE DRAINAGE SYSTEM. AND HEREBY WAIVE AND RELEASE THE CITY OF EOUONOS FOR
My ACT AND ALL CLAIMS r08 DAMAGES, EXCLUDING DAMAGE CAUSED SOLELY BY AN
ACT OR OMISV� OF SAID CITY, AND INJUNCTVVE RELIEF WHIOH THC OWNERS. OR THEM
SUCCESSORS OR ASSIGNS, MAY THEMSELVES HAVE NOW OR IN THE FUTURE BY REASON
Or THE CONSTRUCTION. MAINTENMCE AND OPERATION OF SAD DRAINAGE SYSTEM.
%RESTRICTIONS
%% -"I. NO LINES OR WIRES FOR THE TRANSMISSION Of ELECTRIC CURRENT OR FOR TELEPHONE
BY
USE CATV. FIR OR POLICE SIGNALS OR FOR ONE PURPOSES. SHALL BE PLACED OR
EUE
ITS
PER41TTED TO PLACED UPON AN' L T OUTSIDE THE BUILDING THER ON UNLESS
THE SAME SH ALL BE UNDERGROUND OR IN CONDUIT ATTACHED TO THE BUILDING.
2. COND MONS Of APPROVAL MUST BE MET AND CAN BE rcuNo IN THE FINAL APPROVAL
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
FOR THE SUBDIVISION LOCATED IN FILES P-2002-172 AND PRO 2002-171.
STATE Or WASHINGTON)
3. THE SETBACKS SHO ON THE PLAT MAP ARE VESTED UNDER THIS PRO/rO AL PLA
T A Al
NO BUILDINGS WILL BE ALLOWED IN THE INDICATED SETBACK AREAS WITHOLIR" V., '4.
) SS.
BEING APPROVED. THE BUILDING SETBACKS ARE AS FOLLOWS:
COUNTY Or SNOHOMISH )
FRO T YARD ; 10 FEET
THAT I KNOW OR SATSFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT
WEAR YARD (EXTERIOR) 15 FEET
:SCER7FY
THE PERS N -0 APPEARED BEFORE ME. AND SAID PERSON -XNOrLEDGED THAJ-ITE6-1— NEAR YARD INTERIOR) 10 FEET
Sl GNED , NIS INSTRUMENT. 0. OATH STA TEO NA T WA?. ZED' TO EXECUTE
-SIDE YARD (EXTERIOR) 7. FEET
'
THE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THE
OF PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT. INC., A WASHINGTON CORPORATION - 13'-NE MEt AND
ART 7"0' FEET
�""GE ' I
VOLU F THE USES G N..
N TART ACT OF SU04 PARTY OR AND PURPOSES Eltl..E E
TS
IT AP-C'MONS FOR L. AND OR WHICHEVER 10-ADJACENT
INSTRUMENT.
TEEIR
E SLOPE. ST _..IT A 0 TECHNICAL REPORT WHICH CONFIRMS REDUCING
i
��-tNT
_ FEEGTE TO A MINIMUM OF 10 FEET BASED UPON
E E 4�
DATED: &bII" ZA, 2ad*
Et�CFRGM
WffAFIV PUBLJO
% TRACTS 99j,"D 997 SHALL REMAIN IN A SUBSTANMALLY NATURAL STATE, NO CLEARING.
WrATIN CW WAOMMMM .
...........
GRADIN,.F NO. DUMPING OR BUILDING CONSTRUCTION OF ANY KIND SHALL OCCUR:
(SIGN)
KAPM4 A WOOD
EXCEJ%l� FOR SPECIFIED TRALS. FENCES. RECREATION EOUIPMENT AND AMENITIES APPROVED
CITY OF EDMONDS.
(PRINT)
My App*~4 tq*'-
APIAL 1& 2008
!�.THE
0 .
No st &A-N, ON SUCH AS CUTTING, TRIMMING, GRUBBING. OR OTHER
P.,SIMMOOD" THE TREES. PLANTINGS AN SHRUBBERY OR THEIR
'C
NOTARY PUBL IN AND FOR THE STATE OF
'AM5;A;
ROOT STR3�,TURE. SHALL.00CUR WITHOUT THE OTY'S WRITTEN PRIOR CONSENT:
WASHINGTON. RESIDING AT —JUMMA&—
MY APPOINTMENT EXPIR S
..,."VPT E RaENCY REVOVL TO PRESERVE LIFE OR PROPERTY OCCASIONED By
E - OR ---U-M ON OF TH E TREES - ONLY TREE DETERMINED
TO BE j.ORTST AR
% A.�A�Dqll joy ANV4_CERTIFlE. E ELIGIBLE FOR MODIFICATION
STATE OF6fA"#qfA-nM )
COUNTY OF k IWO- ) )SS.
CERTIFY THAT I KNOW OR SATSFACTORY EVIDENCE THAT KAIZ&A TjAlt0rmff,4eg-
S THE PERSON WHO A�EAREO
O,%FORE ME. TANOT SAID PERSON ACKNOWLEDGED THAT
SIGNED THIS INSTRUMENT. STATED HA F
ON 1�,�&la"09FED TO EXECUTE
THE INSTRUMENT AND ACKNOWLEDGED IT AS THE
OF ASIA EUROPE AMERICAS BANK, TO BE THE FREE AND VOLU-TA Y ACT OF SUCH
PARTY FOR THE USES AND PURPOSES MENTIONED IN THE INSTRUMENT.
DATED: FsexAacv -74,acoq
(SIGN)
(PRIN
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND F
WA —.1.14. RESIDING AT
S
My APPOINTMENT EXPIRES A�ER �007
fMER Cy PRO SION PROVIDED. MEE REMOVAL SHALL REQUIRE
ENT%OF . TIVE M �S OF A SIZE.��VRMING TO ECDC 20.12015.
LAND-11URVEYCrA, Ct�TIFICAiE
N*K&RE81 CERTIFY MAT THIS,SPELCTOOF I-9MAfD J� E* IS BASED UPON AN ACTUAL
N Fjqjj�DV
SUPIVEY AND M40MSION OP 27 NORTH. RANGE 4 EAST. W.M..
E Gj�
RiFIRIEND SSY STATE. STATUTES; I THAT- E DISTANCES. COURSE$ AND ANGLES ARE
SH T lIeON C CTL ; THA TIOE MONUMENTS SHALL BE SET AND LOT AND
8L GOR ER SWrBE STAKEDICORRECTLY ON THE GROUND AS CONSTRUCTION
Is MLAELTEDIAIIHAT I HAVE FUk?A COMPLIED WITH THE PROVISIONS OF THE STATE
AND S TU TIES AND. f�fl MONS GOVERNING PLATMNO.
— --------------
T..
REX
FEGRASVREYPR SSIONAL LAND SURWYOR
CERTITT!;�a
DATE
IXN,ID, �I-
8 rl?k �t r ) � /6/
EASEMENT PROVISIONS 4ft
AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO ALL UTILITIES SERVING SUBJECT
PLAT -AND THEIR RESPECTIVE SUCCESSORS AND ASSIGNS, THE EXTERIOR 1 0 FEET PARALLEL
" A D ADJOINING THE STREET MONTAGE OF ALL LOM TRACTS AND COMMON AREAS, AS
SHOW HEREON IN WHICH TO INSTALL LAY. CONSTRUCT. RENEW, OPERATE AND MAINTAIN
UNDERGROUND CONDIJIM CABLES. PIPE. AND "RES WITH NECESSARY FACILITIES AND OTHER
EOUIPMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF SERVING NIS SUBDIVISION AND OTHER PROPERTY WN
ELECTRIC, TELEPHONE. GAS. TELEVISION CABLE AND OTHER UTILITY SERVIC S TOGETHER
WIN THE RIGHT TO ENTER UPON THE LOTS. TRACTS AND COMMON AREAS AT ALL TIMES
FOR THE PURPOSES HEREIN STATED. DRAINAGE EASEMENTS DESIGNATED ON THE PLAT ARE
HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS. EXCEPT THOSE DESIGNATED
ON THE PLAT AS PRIVATE EASEMENTS. TOGETHER WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS
AND THE RIGHT To EXCAVATE. CONSTRUCT. OPERATE. MAINTAIN, REPAIR MD/OR REBUILD
AN ENCLOSED OR OPEN CHANNEL STORM WATER CONVEYMCE SYSTEM AND/OR OTHER
DRAINAGE FACILITIES. UNDER. UPON OR THROUGH THE DRAINAGE EASEMENT,
AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE CITY OF EDMONDS OVER,
ACROSS ' THROUGH AND UPON THE NORTHWESTERLY 12 FEET OF LOT 5 AND THE SOUTHEASTERLY
8 FEET OF LOT 6. AS SHOWN HEREON. FOR THE OPERAMON AND MAINTENANCE OF UTILITIES;
TOGE ER WIN THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE STATED PURPOSES.
AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OTY OF EDMONDS OVER.
ACROSS. THROUGH A D UPON LOTS & 9. 10. TRACT 995 AND TRACT 998. AS SHOW HEREON.
FOR THE OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE OF A STORM SEWER PIPELINE AND APPURTENANCES;
TOGE R WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR THE STATED PURPOSES.
AN EASEMENT IS HEREBY RESERVED AND GRANTED TO THE MADRONA COVE HOMEOWNERS
ASSOC AMON FOR PEDESTRIAN INGRESS AND EGRESS OVER AND ACROSS THE SOUTH 5 FEET OF
LOT 9 AND THE NORTH 5 FEET OF LOT 10. TOGETHER WPH THE RIGHT OF NGR SS AND EGRESS
FOR THE MAINTENANCE OF ANY SUCH FACILITIES LOCATED WITHIN THE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY.
THE PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT UNDER AND UPON LOTS 6, 7, 8 AND 9, AS SHOWN HEREON,
IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 6. 7. 8 AND 9 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OPERATING. MAINTAINING AND RECONSTRUCIIING STORM WATER FACILITIES; TOGETHER
WITH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES MAINTENANCE OF ANY FACTUTIES
LOCATED UPON OR VAN THE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY HEREIN CONVEYED SHALL BE BORNE
JOINTLY AND EOLIALLY BY THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS S. 7. 8 AND 9.
THE PRIVATE MANAGE EASEMENT UNDER AND UPON LOTS 10. 11 AND 12. AS SHOWN HEREON.
Is HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 10, 11 AND 12 FOR THE
PURPOSE OF OPERATING. MAINTAINING AND RECONSTRUCTING STORM WATER FACILITIES, TOGETHER
WITH THE RIGHT OF INGR SS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES. MAINTENANCE OF ANY FACILITIES
LOCATED U PON OR WITH THE EASEMENT RIGHT Of WAY HEREIN CONVEYED SHALL BE BORNE
JCINTLY AND EOUALLY BY THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 40. 11 AND 12.
THE PRIVATE ORMNAGE EASEMENT UNDER AND UPON LOTS 19. 20. AND 21. AS SHOW HEREON.
IS HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS to. to. 2D, 21 AND 2Z
FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING, MAINTANING AND RECONSTRUCTING STORM WATER FACILITIES;
TOGETHER WN THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES. MAINTENANCE Or
ANY FACILITIES LOCATED UPON OR NN THE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY HEREIN CONVEYED
SHALL BE BORNE JOINTLY AND EOUAL.Y By THE OWNERS OF SAID LOTS 18, 19. 20, 21 AND 22,
THE COMMON DRIVEWAY EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS LOTS 8 AND 9. AS SHOWN HEREON. AND IS
HEREBY RESERVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 8 AND 9 FOR INGRESS AND EGRESS,
THE PRIVATE WOE SEWER EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS LOT 11. AS SHOW HEREON, IS HEREBY
RESERVED F R AND GRANTED TO THE OWNER OF LOT 7 FOR THE PURPOSE OF OPERATING.
MAINTAINING AND RECONSTRUCTING SANITARY SIDE SEWER FACILITIES. TOGETHER WTH THE
RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES.
TH PRIVATE SIDE SEWER EASEMENT OVER AND ACROSS LOT 21. AS SHOWN HEREON. IS HEREBY
RE �RVED FOR AND GRANTED TO THE OWNERS OF LOTS 2 1 AND 22 FOR THE PURPOSE OF
Sr
OPERATING. MAINTAINING AND RECONSTRUCTING SANITARY SIDE SEWER FACILITIES: TOGETHER
W TH THE RIGHT OF INGRESS AND EGRESS FOR SUCH PURPOSES. MAINTENANCE OF THE FACUTIES
LOCATED UPO OR WNW THE EASEMENT RIGHT OF WAY HEREIN CONVEYED SHALL BE BORNE
JOINTLY AND COUALLY By THE OWNERS OF SAW LOTS 21 AND 22,
AUDITOR'S CERTIFICATE
FILED FOR RECORD AT THIE,�EOUES;,g� PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
NIS Ay 0 2004 . ----ill=�.I.LITES
PAST��.j MG RECORDED
5I.VeA01a;� VOLUME6-
Ef=— OF PLATS. PAGES
AFN ORDS
CORDS OF
a Y.. �7
_YSH COUNTY. WASHINGTON.
I", Wow
ITOR. SNOHOMISH COUNTY DEPUTY COUNTY AkeTCAff
AFN a,2azzm&S-my
ALTERATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS I AND 2,
BLOCK 5. ALDERWOO MANOR NO. -9
(VOLUME 10, PAGE 0)
IN SEI/4, SWI/4, SECTION 10, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
LOVELL-SAUERLANO & ASSOCIATES, INC.
19400 33RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 9803a 425.775.la0l
LSA FILE NO. 4486 SHEET I OF 6
MADRONA COVE
SECTION 19, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
LEGAL C48CFtIPTIONS
LEGAL DESCRIPTIONS (continued)
TITLE ENCUMBRANCES
%
PARCEL. ll� %
PARCEL III:
THE FIR PMTY IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTAIN
OEASEmENr.
.
"SLOPE RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2035737.
% % .
.... ..... ,,,A; PCRFI�l' LOT 1. �OCK 1, .1DERWOOD A. NO. 1.
IN VOL WE
ACCORDINGe THE Aj,�HEF�EW U 10. OF
THAT PORTION Or THE SOUTH 150 FEET OF LOT 2. BLOCK 5.
ALDEPWOOD,NWANOR NO. 9. ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF,
THE PROPERTY 15 SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTAIN
OR OAZDED
PLATS.e. COUNTY. WASHINGTON.
6. WE�L
DESC21 As FOLLOWS:
RECORDED VOLUME 10. OF PUTS. PACE 5. RECORDS OF
SNOHOMISH COUNTY. WASHINGTOH. LYING EAST OF PARCEL C OF
SLOPE EASEMENT-, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO. 2036738.
SHORT PLAY 850923033 AND WEST OF COUNTY ROAD SURVEY I2D4;
THE FOLLOWING IDESCRIBED PARCELS:
THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTAIN
-SLOPE FILE NO. 2036739.
SECINHING AT iW i;;ksEcrmN OF �bUN LINE OF SAO LOT I
WITH WESTEr4V'8OUNDAAr OF ODUNTY:ROAD SURVEY No. 1204;
EXCEPT
EASEUENr, RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S
ALCNO?OUN LINE (n LOT I FOR 524.06 FEET TO
-TM REOF;
F
BE NWINC AT A PONT ON THE VXSTERLY LINE OF COUNTY ROAD
SURVEY NO. WN CH IS 150 FEET NORTH OF. MEASURED AT
THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTAIN
-UTILITY EASEMENT' (STORM SEWER), RECORDED UNDER AUDITORS FILE NO.
51204
RIGHT ANGLE TO THE'SOUTH LINE OF LOT Z IN BLOCK 5 OF
2063005.
NO-14LONG WEST UNE-OF LOT I FOR 252 - 15 FEET TO RA
COUNTY GAO
AILDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9:
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY ROAD
OF THAT CERTAIN
25O.-FEET SOUTH OF 5aUTHFRLY BOUNDARY OF
SQRW , Md. 120�: .1. . A . . ..
THENO'SOUN 65-26'3j-. EAST 2.IV25 FEET;
FOR 75 FEET:
THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAO LOT 2 FOR 300
THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT To THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS
-UTIUTY EASEMENT' (SANITARY SEWER). RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.
2070799.
THENCE SOUTH 19-14-57- EA;rVOR 60 FEET TO A POINT ON A LINE
PARALLEL TO AN TOO FEFJ NORTH OF SOUTH LINE OF SAO LOT 1;
FEET;
THENCE NORTHERLY PARALLEL TO SAID COUNTY ROAD FOR 75 FEET TO
THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTAIN
.Q-
THENCE. EAS1. ALONG. -SAID PARALLEL LINE FOR 259 FEET TO
lTCRlYjWNDARY OF COUNTY RO No, 1 2C -
A POINT 150 FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2:
TH CE EAST " FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNIN .
-UTUTY EASEMENr (SANITARY AND/OR STORM SEWER). RECORDED UNDER
AUDIToR*s FTLE NO. 2070559.
THENCE S JTHERLY ACONG SAID WlESlFZ=ARY 07-SAJO COUNTY
ROAD FOR 1 06.14 nTT TO POINI'OF SECINNINF,
'OF SAO
BEGINNING AT THE INTERSECTION OF SOUTH LINE LOT 2
WITH THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD (SURVEY NO. 1206);
THE PROPERTY IS SUBJECT TO THE TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THAT CERTAIN
PARCEL e: . .... ...
THENCE NORM 69'51'23' WEST ALONG SOUTHERLY LINE Of SAID LOT
U
21 TILITY EASEMENT" (SANITARY SEWER). RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S FILE NO.
11570.
ALL THAT PORTIA OF LOT i BLOCV. S.'ILM: 'AN 'WZ;.' I"*
*&i
FOR 300 FEET-.
THENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTH 75 FEET.
ACCORDING TO To.
TOE PLAT NtRf6f. RECOROE 7
PLAM PAGE 6. '%ECORDS OF SNOHOMISH CqPhlry.' A�HINGTO".
T, SOUTH SS'51'23' EAST TO WIESTERLY LINE OF SAID COUNTY
RGEANCE
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY LINE TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING,
TO AND
BEGINNING AT THE INTE�R&Wt% OF t.WRf';ARAU 100
A THE
THE OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
AR I& WESTERLY
FEET NORTH OF THE SOUTH ?W OF 0) LOT I.
BOUNDARY OF THE COUNTY ROAD, SURVEY NQ,-1204:
OF SAID
THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH.0 LOT 101,�Sg
SITUATE IN COUNTY
FEET; �V .1
THENCE NORTH w3e3r WEST FOR 30 FEET;
THENCE NORTH 701 r5a' EAST FOb 237.22 FEET WESTERLY
.70'THE
,JIM Y
TH NDAR OF COUNTY ROAD, SURVEY NO. 12016
FIND �Iplz
ENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY ARY OF COU AD
0
OR 71.24 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNIM
PARCEL 0
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 2. BLOCK 5. R ANOR NO. V*
4.E
EI'rACCORDING TO ME PUT THEREOF. N
REC=E
PUTS, PACE 1. REC DS OF SNONOWLSH ClUNTY. WASU1116C.
%
LYING WZ OF A LINE 150 FEET NORTH OF ANIN PAPALLQ- TO THE
SOUTHOL E THEREOF AND WESTERLY OF COUNTY-51D
NO. Q 4. .!I UNDER SURVEY.
TREASURER'S CERTIFICATE
EXCEPT NAT PORTION CONVEYED TO CHARLES AND PATRICE WLEE.
HUSBAND AND NFL By OCED RECORDED UNDER AUDITOR'S.61LE NO. 20D402.1002Y
.. .........
1 HEREBY CERTIFY THAT ALL STATE AND COUNTY TAXES HERETOFORE LEVIED AGAINST THE
PROPERTY DESCRIBED HEREIN. ACCORDING TO THE BOOKS AND RECORDS OF MY OMCE.
HAVE BEEN FULLY PAID AND DISCHARGED, INCLUDING a0*4 TAXES
PARCEL 0..
140..."
3 -11 -
THAT PORTION OF LOT 2. BLOCK 5. ALDCRWOGG MANOR
ACCOR INC TO THE PLAT THEREOF. RECORDED IN VOLUME I Cf. OF
PLATS, PAGE 6. RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINCTCN. I
%
%
E06 L -vtAJ;, ., 01
SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER DEPUTY SNOHOMISH COUNTY TREASURER
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOWS:
BEGINNING AT A POINT ON THE WESTERLY LINE Or COUNTY ROAD
%
IN ACCUkUANCE WITH RCW j,,.ua
SURVEY NO. 1204 WHICH IS 150 FEET NORTH OF, MEASURED AT
RI ANGLES TO THE SOUTH LINE OF LOT 2. IN BLOCK 5 OF
7
%
AN PERSON RECORDING A FLAT AF,
A RWDOD MANOR NO. 9;
IGH
.0.
%
MAY 31st MUST PAY ADVANCE TAXES
4,
THENCE SOUTHERLY ALONG THE WESTERLY LINE OF SAO COUNTY ROAD %
FOR 75 FEET; 1%
FOY %
R TTTF NFYT YF I R. IL Je �,g
-b 0
THENCE WEST PARALLEL TO THE SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2 FOR 300
F T:
EE
TH CE NORTHERLY PARALLEL TO SAID COUNTY ROAD FOR 75 FEET TO
.0
........
<
Up
--ok"
A PONT 150 FEET NORTH OF SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2:
THENCE EAST 300 FEET TO THE POINT OF BEGINNING.
.......
8 E
PARCEL E:
ISH
ALL THAT PORTION OF LOT 2. BLOCK 3. AUDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9.
ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF. RECORDED IN VOLUME 10. OF
PLATS, PACE 6. RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
I
DESCRIBED AS FOLLOW&
.. %
BEGIN ING AT THE INTERSECTION Or SOUTH LINE OF SAID LOT 2
WIN THE WESTERLY LINE OF THE COUNTY ROAD (SURVEY NO. 1204);
%
THW"CE NORTH 89'31 '23* WEST ALONG SOUTHERLY UNE OF SAID LOT
FOR 300 FEET;
NENCE AT RIGHT ANGLES NORTH 75 FEET.
%
THENCE SOUTH aq,5V2Y EAST TO WESTERLY UNE Of SAO COUNTY
.0
ROAD;
THENCE SOUTHEASTERLY ALONG SAID WESTERLY UNE TO THE TRUE
POINT OF BEGINNING.
AFN
ALTERATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS I AND 2.
BLOCK ALDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9
:,
(VOLUM 10. PAGE 0)
IN SE11/4, SWI/4, SECTION 10, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
LOVELL-GAVERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.
111111400 33RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD. WASHINGTON 98038 42a.776.1501
LOA FILE NO. 4486 SHEET 2 OF 6
-1
0
P-�
EX. J:.dR-A SS DISK W1 -P
1�&NG.:'N
ED 'f.COR -1
S 89'�2'17- E �P)'
S 89-2400 f.C1204)
— S asplor E _. 13111-60'M0204)
... ...... EX*. 4'W 4�ldt;;CRETE
I
MON UANI TIM TH ' -5/'
ORA, NTH
11 -CMIN I
VISITED -11 _03...%
EX. 3 - BRASS DISK
"TH 'X* IN CASING
'ASITED ; 4-11 _ 03
2
I . . ...... (P)
IL Ci a.
C, .4
.7
4 . .... . I ;
- P-
4
%
\9,2
N SM'38t a - a V . I
213."M) zi3.aV(TP4) A 4 60. TPA
T m m'r P A R KI
A DEL 0
1%1
v 0 L 21, ..p G. 70) --lD . : . 4
4
.'t;. 4- X 4- Coy'�iiTE
MONUMENT V?W 1-5/8*
7M BRASS DISR WITH
EX, 4C:LX:4T NCNCR
MONU T. �FIE
BRASS CAP NTH . X'
IN CA NG
VISITED ; 4-11-03
MADRONA COVE
SECTION 19, T.27N., R.41E., W.M.
CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
r. (u) (� (I 2D4)
b-60'53'54' b-69'58'00'
R-575.01' R-573.69'
L-701 43' L-700.56'
T-�':sr T-401.45'
"011 A 6 11,
0 C Y, I V
0 ,
'A 0., t
A
PARCEL 9
"ES 'ME ESTABLISHED
PARILLM T. THE CAST
LINE OF TOMMY PARK ADD. _E� 891t�27- W
L N—
No. 4 AT DISTANCE 4,35' FROM 24 - -
MONU14E T AT THE MORN END 250.00�(600ESC)
OF PIONEER WAY AS PRESCRIBED
By PLAT OF SEAWOOD. PARCEL A 9
��LLJNE.5-C'D !!�- NTTH
N 59'55'27* W
11
(M.1204)
6,69'32*ocr ui
R-573. :D
L.....121* I z
2 '
T.398.231
OD
SOUTH QUARTER OF SECTION 19
EX. 4' X 4' CONCRETE
MONUMENT NTH 2* BRASS CAP
VATH 'X7 IN C SING
MSITED : —1-03
4"(P4
L-23.54�
'1<1W,
212th STREET S.W.
ji
U)
Q
4
EX. 4' X 4' CONCRETE
I
T'— R-545.01
5
MONU ENT WTH 2"
BRASS CAP WITH 'X'
N M
a.
IN CA
MSITED`�, 4-11-03
'C'
c
Cli
EX. 3' BRASS DISK
'X'
NTH IN CASL40
VISITED : 4-11-03
LIN
T CLAIE
PE CAR M DEED
RECORDED UNDER
0
PARCEL C
0
-
r.OUNDARl
A.F. NO. 200402100231
SEE DETAIL BELOW
13
N
W*E
s
.. \ SCALE : I'-IOV
"4,,� N MV3 E-287;0(4�EOVERALL S
ST_ 251 A) PARCEL 0 0' 20'40'60'50'IW 150' 20WOr
".. ..' 4j�"
G
4-%J!S; _71
I
�,OO D
RCEL F
PARCEL E
EAST 295.11'
\41
"0
V,- ") t
'o
SEE ABOVE RIGHT FOR CONTINUATION
%
\k '�Q
.--CEGENR.'*'
41
(P) -.lf?ERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE MOM PLAT OF
11
AUDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9 (VOL. 10. P$A�
4.35'-
o;lf
61
Ns 0,19,10-W
64) REFERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE. mbu sNowomisH
4' R
4* CONCRETE
.83-
COUNTY ROAD SURVEY NO. i2p4wbATED IULY,.1?3O
EX, X
MONUMENT NTH 1 -5/0'
41.92'
is 136.23'
(V4) REFERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE FROM PLAT OP TOMMY
BRASS DISK WITH 'X*
IN CA NG4_11_0
leAl
N 89'56'23* E-217.04' OW ALL
EAST-2113.22' (SEA)
PARK ADO. NO. 4 QVW- 27. PG. 70)
VISITED 3
/
(SEA) - REFERS TO CqUIM OR DISTA POIt PLAT OF
/
BOUNDARY LINE
SEAWO�.�V� 47, PGS.
PER OUIT CLAIM DEED
REC DED UNDER
(DESC) - REFERS TO COURSE OR MOM jfOAL DESCROMON
A.,. NO. 2..",
(M) - OASURED OR �ALCC�ATED COURSE (jDISTANCE FA THIS PLAT
BASIS OF BEARINGS
THE CENTERUNE OF BOWDOIN WAY PER PLAT
OF ALDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9 AS MONUMENTED
STATISTICS
EOUIPMENT; UETZ SET 4 ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION
METHOD: FIELD TRAVERSE
ACCURACY. CONFORMS TO WAG 332-130-090
MONUMENTS VISITED: APRIL 11, 2003
AFN 0700 31
ALTERATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS I AND 2,
BLOCK 6. ALDERWOOD MANOR NO. 0
(VOLUME 10. PAGE 0)
IN SEI/4, SWI/4, SECTION 10, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.
19400 33RD AVENUE W.. SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98038 425.776.1591
LSA FILE NO. 448e SHEET 3 OF 5
0
0
MADRONA COVE
SECTION 19, T.27N., F1.4E., W.M. LEGEND
CITY OF EDMONDS
EX..011014 PIN WITH 0. SET 15' X 2C PON PIN WITH PLAS71C CAP NO'D 221169
/-.VkP NO'D 9891
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON 0 . SET 4"X 4' CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH 1-5/5' BRASS
DISK STAMPED *22969' WITH AN '.' IN CASINO AS
I IV ad CON51RUCTION 15 COMPLETED
A, 45'.
('Ir Car . COMMON DRIVEWAY CASEMENT
COESDE - CITY 01 EDMONDS STORM DRAINAGE EASEMENT
L �71�.ix.
I T. N
COE - CITY OF EDMONDS SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
NAIL
EDGE Of CON GOIEISSDI .1 OF EDMONDS SANITARY AND/OR STORM
'0' Aff, W*E
T IN ILS 5.01,
. .. ... 34' SEWER EASEMENT
4 PRDE . PRIVATE DRAINAGE EASEMENT
A-39:45-4- COESDE 'VO"t1�'C"L 137.22' TC!
66 LK EASEMENT
A!4NO. 2063M %,,5VAV - E (DESC) 235 54. V�� P - PUBLIC SIDEWA
N 7V'156 c E C., % SCALE :31*-5V PRMVJE - PRIVATE WALK AT EASEMENT FOR MADRONA COVE
TRACT 995 s 1�175622!56* E
Lni: . . ........ HOME ERS ASSOCIATION
. . . . 3, L�A , , . N \ X\ HOME
C."'VAL / 'G IE_ - .:� ..... ". -t SSE . PRIVATE SANITARY SEWER EASEMENT
" * . 3sF- 6
CpE 8 '.. 0! 10`20'30'40*50' 75,
tt, ,, �4�; y POE - PUBLJC DRAINAGE EASEMENT
OPEN SPACE
t
.0 R-190 ILL
0 -N52.i3 N5215*58*W
T-26.9 22.52' B�CKK sd BSBL BUILDING SETBACK LINE (SEE RESTIRCTIONS. ITEM 4.
:L b.43*5a*59* 9
6-30-09*25' 1 1
18.5- COE%e... L-13.112* PAGE 2)
A.F. 1,0.21)707.1. 7,028 SF
By 4.Z.,
Ul ci (P) REFERS TO COURSE OR D! TAHOE FROM PLAT OF
a ALDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9 (VOL 10. Pr. 6)
CITY OF EDMONDS (1204) RCFERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE FROM SNONOMISH
z TWACT 9%*
17.48'
-,o -;5.554 s.r. I I :-,k T SLOPE .E.l A.I.
J COUNTY ROAD SURVEY NO. 12D4 DATED JULY. 19M
CRITICAL -aEq 1. a NO. 2036737, 2036738
OPEN SPACE I "Qx: It 4 0 AND 2036739
.&- (TP4) REFERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE FROM PLAT OF TOMMY
t
3,548 S.I.
89'56'2Y' p,
'0' t;
v 0 -,10' U11LITY--_.r 5 PARK ADD. NO. 4 (VOL 27. PG. 70)
1 ...... 79.7k .... �4' IQ * !.I ! i
I L-46.2Y 76 S.F.
&.5811,3r
&F,
(TYPICAL), (SEA) REFERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE FROM PLAT OF
SEAWOOD (VOL 47, PGS. 5-6)
-ST ....... `
10' POE .......... t'I'
j ...... 80.52 (DESC) REFERS TO COURSE OR DISTANCE FROM LEGAL
4L -10' PRDE 149� ......... 97.35' - L.15.60'
LOTS ia-22%
&.11-51-44 DESCRIPTION
TV_VFFDE_FC5f 1 '55-04-1
OTS 13 - 22
r- 1% 4;� . ? , 1.4012
A. NO' b . '
4
L 0 T 4 ji-roy 20 1'. FOR COTS ....... 1AST.. L-21.3" 27. 3 .5 vrod�
18 1"2 ............ 61 ............. EAST .............
e 4.02,1 �.F. NOTE
I, CR-410.00' 2L2
0 arw'2a' E, �,J ....... .... 116.70- ALIL LOT CORNERS WILL BE MARRED WITH IS'X 24'
L-0.79' ........ .... I. V) R.N PINS .11. PLASTIC CAPS NO-D. 22969.
3 S. Uj"
�29;2'51- *.'e 2, 79 S.F. 6,,t52 S.F.
T-20 55' 3 TR. 996' AS CONSTRUCTION IS COMPLETED
111 .% 9 EA ENT UJ F LANDSCAPE
19 - ) .81 6,2
- g \t; FOIR ADDITIONAL EASEMENT DETAILS SEE SHEET 5
I OR (TYPICAL) :6 a TER
C�' or FOR a
COTS 8_ _J E ....... EAST—- ..... 134.48
22
L �.� .. ... I CL
.......... . EAST--- .97 ...
.... ........ ....... log
TRACT 998 .. ....... . SBLCTYPICAL)� .
;5
16,957 S.F. 30
TR.ACT 9f6.DATA
A '.1 _T
5.5500 S.F. .
I 7�/� i . I .. OPEN SPACE/ C11 2
-4 REC. AjkEW' % % 6,420 S.F. F. 4.869 S F. Ii 9 1 N 0516
7.
C 114-31.�2"�-4
0 7
3 a ... Ing, A
2 :1. 11.27
4, aG.a, -E.Sf
10 N 59'56'23' E-2157.D4' OVERAiL c
E -293.22*:(SEA)
AST 2i.5
BOUNDARY LINE 'd'lp % EA
ST 62.
PER QUIT CLAIM DEED % "I tv
11: DED UNDER 70.25' - \
�q, RO .1; .2 "1%
A.F.014 . 200402100231 T
EX. JR& PIN WITH
'D
�AP NO�D 17 ...... L
.oT
.oT
oT
L 0 1
fR-68,50'
t 15
d
S. "), 1. .. . .0
N as.- W -3.
59AWOOD:
".p '! ' -
(VOL 47. PG 17
4.7 TRACT 999
77 SF
1. 3 S.F.:
. .............. 7*454 S.F
% 16 OPEN SPACEL&, RECREATION AREA\
1b lb 1b. % __1 Be- jzb�+ 1-60,00-f --- 2S.45!--___t
T
0 [AiT - ZT6.117 - 6 FT. WOW
',.a TY OF EOMON S SANITARY FENCE 0,3
.1 SeWE
.4 R EASEMENT A.F. NO. 2070845
Ib A 20701148
CITY OF EDMONDS SA.1 ARY +
0 SEKR EASEMENT A.F. NO. 2070632
A v7QQfQ3/ZSg
FN
Mo N T c L A I W-C 0 N DO M I N I U M ALTERATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS I AND 2
0.", %tD 10 0 8 0 0 2 BLOCK 5, ALDERWOOD MANOR NO. 9
A.F. N . 200
(VOLUME 10, PAGE 0)
STATISTICS BASIS OF BEARINGS
EOUIPMENT: UETZ SET A ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION TH CENTERLINE OF BOWDOIN WAY PER IN SEI/4, SWI/4, SECTION 19, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
PLAT OF ALD WOOD MANOR NO. 9 AS I .. %
METHOD! FIELD TRAVERSE UONUMENTEO`R LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.
ACCURACY. CONFORMS TO WAG 332-130-090 0 19400 33RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200
MONUMENTS VSITED: APRIL 11. 2003 LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 9a038 425.775.1G91
% LSA FILE NO. 4486 SHEET 4 OF 5
0
A
N MADRONA COVE
LEqEAD
18'
X W IRM-O"N' T� PLASTIC CAP .0`0 22969
SECTION 19, T.27N., R.4E., W.M.
w*E CITY OF EDMONDS
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
SCALE:
45' 60,
,,,�'EX ' IRON PIN WTH CAP NO'D 17672
N ai-41-
EX IRON PIN MTN CAP.NO'D 4561
'C '" 0"
IRON Pl W 'MTN CAP Ii.-D 1.1
'v J'.
Zip
E IRON PIN MTN CAP NO'D 17672
S"id21*31* E 156,71' AND S 23M'29* W
0.50' MOM MW PROPERTY CORNER
6 FT. WOOD
FE NCE
0 4 FT,'C.. 2
LINK CN
GNO.FfNCE 0.3' NE OF LINE cl�
-.,AIN OF CHAIN P
% ��j
O.,'� NENCE ON LINE t
W OF CORNER s 7
ANGLE PONT OF
FENCE OX E. LIq
111EM"EN 0" % 10 RIVATE
(Tw'CAL.) 1. .. DR INAGE
7eF2"SG'*S'-- EASEMENT
L -�R . ACT qq� '9.2; 4, FOR LOTS 5-9
ICY PRIVATE
%
DRAINAGE
0
FASE ENT
..'? % OR LOTS 6-9 8 7
L_ ' '
9
TRACT 997
AM, ;s I 'Is 10' BuILaNG C.'s,
.57 SETBACK LINE SLOPE
FROM TOP 0
0 4
10' PRIVATE
% 1. a l' WALKWAY
EAST. .*
L EASEMENT EAST
EASEMENT TO BENEF'
tOTS 6. 7. 8 AND 9
SCALE : 1'-30'
0' 13, 30'
I I It
vil 9 \8
PRIVATE � —
EASEMENT M BENEFIT
LOTS to. 11 AND 12
10
'%, Q1.
\ \
� 'I,
s FT. WOOD
-------
FENCE
6
2o' Pmc
I I * ; I . L-13.!2 . 0 \ 3,%95' — % — — — — — — — — - I _Z:�� 9.8 UTIuTY
6-43U 5 AST
L — — --- +-I -------------
2; 20'
%4k
%
ABOVE FOR
to, UTWTy DIE.
EASEMENT PRIVATE EASEMENT
(TYPICAL) DRAINAGE
...... EASEMENT
I D" A IN THIS AREA
U R 10
10' PUBLIC EA I F 0
DRAINAGE i LOTS 2 AH?
EASEMENT
21
- _J EA
I LOTS 111,- 21
— — — — — — — — — —
20 DRAINAGE
E�'ZIIBFOR LOTS 10-12
ASE ENT TRACT"098
(TYPICAL)
LINE TABLE FOR BSBL
LINE LENGTH BEARING 10' UTILITY
LI S94
L2 11.51' 4,3-20-11: E
L3 N
— S ! 4"
L4
L5 m3a
Lf 1. 7Z 11 705*2526'5449-' WW
EASEMENT
R::,:UR:S�rL T A F R S
1O.A. -BIL AND,
NORTH BOUNDARY
BUILDING SETBACK LINE LOT 9 DETAILS
EASEMENT
x
I?Y.PRIVATE WALKWAY EASEMENT,
5
5 W EACH SIDE OF COMMON
PROPERTY LINE OF LOTS 9 AND 10
w
L) I
AFN
CL
ALTERATION OF A PORTION OF LOTS I AND 2.
BLOCK 5, ALDERWOOD MANOR NO. 0
(VOLUME 10, PAGE 8)
Ell
IN SEI/4, SWI/4, SECTION 19, T.27N., R.4E.. W.M.
LOVELL-SAUERLAND & ASSOCIATES, INC.
19400 33RD AVENUE W., SUITE 200
LYNNWOOD, WASHINGTON 98036 425.775.1501
LOA FILE NO. 4486 SHEET 6 OF 6
-C
. 1 sc)c3
E
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - Edmonds, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
HEARING EXAMINER
FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS AND DECISION
OF THE HEARING EXAMINER
CITY OF EDMONDS
GARY HAAKENSON
Pit- MAYOR
cz;t , :'."
De'r
NOW 3
'14
APPLICANT: Phoenix Development Inc. (See Exhibit 1, Attachment 2)
CASE NO.: V-03-104
LOCATION: The variance is for the construction of a house on lot 18 of the
Madrona Cove Subdivision (PRD-2002-171 / P-2002-172) (See
Exhibit 1, Attachments I and 2)
APPLICATION: The Edmonds Comm" unity Development Code 16.20.03 0 identifies
the maximum height for a residence within the RS-8 zone as 25
feet. ECDC 21.40.030 requires that height be measured from the
average grade as measured from undisturbed soil. The original
request was to exceed this by 10.07' in order to construct a house
with a maximum height of 35.07' above average original grade
(see Exhibit 1, Attachments 3-5). The latest revised request is to
exceed the height requirement by 0.7' (see Exhibit 24).
REVIEW PROCESS: Hearing Examiner conducts a public hearing and makes the final
decision.
MAJOR ISSUES:
a. Compliance with Edmonds Community Development Code
(ECDC) Section 16.20.030 SINGLE-FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
- Site Development Standards.
b. Compliance with ECDC Chapter 20.85 VARIANCES.
SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATION AND DECISION:
Staff Recommendation: Approve
Hearing Examiner Decision: Approve
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
Oaring Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 2
PUBLIC HEARING:
After reviewing the official file, which included the Planning Division Staff Advisory Report,
and after visiting the site, the Hearing Examiner conducted a joint public hearing on the subject
request and fifteen other variance requests on the approved Madrona Cove PRD. The hearing on
the application was opened at 9:30 a.m., October 2, 2003, in the City Hall, Edmonds,
Washington, and at the end of that hearing, it was determined that the tape recorder was not
working properly, so there was no official record of the hearing. The hearing was therefore
continued to 7:00 p.m. October 15, 2003. The hearing was reopened at 7:15 p.m. on October 15,
2003, in the City Hall, but it was announced at the beginning of the hearing that the applicant had
requested that the hearing be continued to October 29, 2003. The Examiner allowed those
present to offer comments and at 7:47 p.m. continued the hearing to 7:00 p.m., October 29, 2003.
The hearing was reopened at 7: 10 p.m., October 29, 2003 in the City Council Chambers and at
9:43 p.m., the hearing was continued to 7:00 p.m. November 19, 2003. The hearing was
reopened at 7:08 p.m., November 19, 2003 in the City Council Chambers and was closed at 8:35
p.m. By the end of the November 19, 2003 hearing, the applicant had withdrawn nine of the
variance requests and had modified the other seven. At the request of the Examiner, the
Applicant agreed to allow additional time for the preparation of the Examiner's reports.
Participants at the public hearing and the exhibits offered and entered are listed in this report. A
verbatim recording of the hearing is available in the Planning Division.
HEARING COMMENTS:
The following persons offered comments at the public hearing.
From the City:
Steve Bullock, Senior Planner
Star Campbell, Planner
From the Applicant:
Jim Egge
Bob Vick
From the Community:
Matt Douglas
Don Kreiman
Eric Dickerson
Troy Stafford
John McLain
David Moore
Rich Demeroutis
Mary Jo Sakoi
Ray Martin
Finis Tupper
Roger Hertrich
CORRESPONDENCE:
The following members of the general public submitted correspondence and/or other materials
into the file.
Pauline & Charles DeWarne, Exhibit 2
0
Desmond Call, Exhibit 3
Sandra Nichols, Exhibit 4
Matthew & Tracie Douglas, Exhibits 5, 18, & 19
Dr. Ronald Manger, Exhibit 6
Marilyn & Ross Conley, Exhibit 7
David Thorpe & Laura Mason, Exhibit 8
Karen Biermanski, Exhibit 9
Don Kreiman, Exhibits 20A, 20B & 20C
SUMMARY OF CONCERNS & RESPONSES:
learing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 3
Following is a summary of concerns expressed by members of the general public and responses
from the Applicant and from Staff. The following summary addresses all of the variances
requested because a joint hearing was held to consider all of the requested variances.
Concerns:
• The additional heights would spoil the looks of the neighborhood and would set a
precedent for other builders in Edmonds.
• Since Madrona Cove is an approved PRD, the developer is precluded from asking for a
height variance according to ECDC 20.35.
• Approval of the Madrona Cove PRD was a legislative decision by the Edmonds City
Council and this request should be sent back to the City Council for final decision.
• It is difficult to envision how a developer could not have been aware of the need for
variances at the time the PRD case was presented to the City Council.
The applicant did not ask for a variance during the PRD process, yet knew variances
would be needed before the PRD was approved. The PRD may not have been approved
if the City Council knew this many variances would be necessary.
The existing houses in the area are built to code and residents in the area expect the new
development to fit in with the existing houses.
The approval of the variances and resulting increase of height and house size will make
Madrona Cove inconsistent with the surrounding community.
• It would be a grant of special privilege if this developer were granted variances when one
of the existing neighbors was denied a one -foot height variance.
• The topography of Madrona Cove is the same if not less severe that the topography found
in the rest of the neighborhood. The existing homes had to be built with retaining walls
and dug down to meet the height requirements. The new development should have to
meet the same criteria that the existing neighborhood had to meet.
Profit or extra expense to develop a property may not be used to gain approval of a
variance.
0 No other house in the area is over 25'. in height. These homes will be higher than that.
learing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 4
9 The height envisioned by the applicant is out of character with normal single-family
development envisioned by the Comprehensive Plan.
* Approval of the variance will not be consistent with the purpose of the zoning and the
zone district in which the property is located.
0 Views of properties in the vicinity would be harmed.
0 The duplex on Pioneer Way, which was referred to by the applicant, is not near this
development and should not be referred to further.
* There should only be four houses built on Pioneer Way instead of five. Then all of the
garages could be on grade.
0 Adjustments could be made to the roof pitches and then no variances would be necessary.
0 The developer would save thousands of dollars if he gets the variances.
0 There should not be any need for variances in a PRD.
* Only lot #6 looks like it needs a variance.
0 Three different proposals have been submitted for the variance requests. The developer
has made a good faith effort by the final revision, but the variances would still set a
precedent.
0 1 t o I 1/2story buildings may be appropriate on this property.
0 Why not dig a little deeper or modify the roofs a little more?
Responses from the Applicant:
• The applicant could have done a straight plat or attached homes, but chose to do a
detached project with preservation of significant open space.
• Trees will be left in the native growth protection area near Main and the other open space
areas will be left undisturbed, except where the utility pipes are to be installed. A future
trail will be installed over that.
• At the beginning of the PRD process conceptual plans were submitted. Grading plans
were then prepared and have been reviewed by staff. At this stage of the process each lot
is looked at.
• The applicant has tried to preserve the landform. and has tried to eliminate the need for as
many variance requests as possible.
• The variance requests for Lots 1, 3, 4, 8, 15, 16, 19, 20, and 21 have been withdrawn.
• The houses on Lots 2 & 5 have lowered building pads and lower roof pitches.
• The house on Lot 6 is complicated by how the average grade is measured. The old
driveway cut is shown on the plans and is part of the calculation. The house is to be kept
up near the end of the cul-de-sac.
0
0 Lot 7 has a lower roof pitch.
* Lot 9 is similar to Lot 6.
&nng Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 5
• The house on Lot 18 is moved back on the lot and the roof pitch is reduced.
• The house on Lot 22 is cut into the hill.
• No other variances approved in the City were used as a precedent in this request.
• Rockeries on Lots 6 & 9 would impact the neighbors to the north more than what is being
proposed.
• If the building pads are lowered any further, the lots will not drain properly and water will
pond at the foundations.
Response by Staff:
After the PRD process is complete then someone can request a variance on a case -by -case
basis. There is nothing in the code that says you can't request a variance after a PRD is
approved.
0 The old driveway on Lot 6 is not being used as basis for variance approval.
Staff believes the requests comply with the variance criteria and that they should be
approved.
GENERALBACKGROUND:
In May of 2003, the City Council approved the 22-lot Formal Plat and Planned Residential
Development known as Madrona Cove. This approval established areas of the site to be
protected as native growth areas, public open space areas, connection of and with City bikeway
and walkway elements, a specific lot layout and a specific look for the homes to be constructed in
this development. Five different house plans were approved to be used throughout the site. The
applicant also submitted a preliminary grading plan during the Plat and PRD process that was
reviewed and generally approved for compliance with the City's policies related to grading as
stated in the Comprehensive Plan. However it was not a final approval of the grading plan or
plat construction documents.
As the applicant started to work on the final grading and construction documents it became
apparent to them that some of the house designs approved through the PRD process were going
to require variances for height. This was because of the amount of grading required to bring in
the road and provide reasonable access to the individual lots and the design of the individual
house plans. At that point, the applicant sat down with staff to discuss the possibilities.
Staff's direction to them was to first design the grade of the road to follow the existing contour of
the land as closely as possible. Second, andjust as importantly, they would have to make sure
that road grade would require minimal grading of the individual lots to provide reasonable access
to those lots from the road for the approved house designs. If the applicant could demonstrate
these things, they might be able to meet the variance criteria as stated in ECDC 20.85.
Oaring Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 6
The applicant took this direction and continued to work on the grading plan for the project as
well as selecting the specific house plan for each lot that would most closely comply with the
City's regulations and policies for height and minimizing grading. After working through their
plans a number of times, the applicant has confirmed with staff that the proposed road grading
complies with the Comprehensive Plan policies encouraging retention of existing topography and
minimizing cut and fill excavation work. Staff also confirmed that the grading proposed for the
individual lots appears to be the minimum amount of grading needed for each lot to have a
slightly elevated building pad in relation to the road. The resultant grading will resolve any
drainage and access issues on the site.
With this understanding, the applicant first requested height variances for 16 of the lots. Lots 1-9
are located on the east and north sides of the upper access road. The addition of fill on those lots
to provide reasonable vehicular access from the proposed road along with the house designs
approved by the Hearing Examiner and the City Council drove the initial need for the variance
request on these lots. Lots 15, 16 and 18-22 of the approved plat and PRD have the most
significant grades of all the lots in the development. In an effort to minimize the excavation
needed on these lots the applicant has selected a house design that has a smaller footprint and
steps up the hillside. However, the three-story plan with the approved elevation design
necessitates the variance request.
During the hearing process, a number of neighbors expressed concerns and opposition to the
multiple variance requests in the proposed development. As a result, the applicant has reworked
a number of the house plans and has withdrawn nine of the variance requests and has
substantially reduced the variance amounts on the remaining seven -variance requests.
Following is a review of the variance request for Lot 18.
Specific proposal for V-2003-104, Lot 18-height variance request of 0.7':
Lot 18 is the first lot on the right as you enter the lower portion of the development from Pioneer
Way. The grading of the new road along with the specific house plan selected for this site has
resulted in a variance request of 0.7 feet.
FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS:
A. SITE DESCRIPTION
1. Site Development And Zoning:
a) Facts:
(1) Size: The lot size is approximately 5,200 square feet. See Exhibit 1, Attachment
2.
(2) Land Use: The subject property is part of a 22 lot PRD that has received
preliminary approval. The applicants are currently in the process of creating the
final plans for the construction of the plat improvements including grading and
installation of the road and utilities on the site.
earing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 7
(3) Zonin : The subject property is located within the planned residential
development of Madrona Cove (PRD-2002-171 / P-2002-172). The underlying
zone is RS-8. See Exhibit 1, Attachments I and 2.
(4) Terrain: The lot slopes up substantially from the front of the lot to the rear (west
to east) with the steepest grade near the rear of the lot. Refer to Exhibit 1,
Attachment 2 for the original topography and Exhibit 1, Attachment 3 for the
grading plan that is currently under review in association the City's review of the
final plat.
2. Neighboring Development And Zoning:
a) Fact: The property to the west across Pioneer Way and the property directly to the
east are within the Madrona Cove PRD and are designated open spaces. The property
to the north is also within the Madrona Cove PRD and will ultimately be developed
with a single-family residence. The property to the south is zoned Single -Family (RS-
8) and is developed with a single-family residence. Refer to Exhibit 1, Attachment 1).
b) Conclusion:. The proposed development of single-family residences is consistent
with the surrounding zoning and development.
B. COMPLIANCE WITH THE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
The Comprehensive Plan has the following stated goals and policies for Residential
Development and development within areas of sensitive soils and topography which appear
to apply to this project.
Residential Development
B. Goal. High quality residential development, which is appropriate to the diverse lifestyle
of Edmonds residents, should be maintained and promoted. The options available to the
City to influence the quality of housing for all citizens should be approached realistically
in -balancing economic and aesthetic consideration, in accordance with the following
policies:
B. 1. Encourage those building custom homes to design and construct homes with
architectural lines, which enable them to harmonize with the surroundings, adding
to the community identity and desirability.
B-3 Minimize encroachment on view of existing homes by new construction or
additions to existing structures.
B.4. Support retention and rehabilitation of older housing within Edmonds whenever it is
economically feasible.
B.5. Protect residential areas from incompatible land uses through the careful control of
other types of development and expansion based upon the following principles:
Oaring Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 8
B.5.c Sable property values must not be threatened by view, traffic or land use
encroachments.
B.5.d. Private property must be protected from adverse environmental impacts of
development including noise, drainage, traffic, slides, etc.
BA Require that new residential development be compatible with the natural constraints
of slopes, soils, geology, vegetation and drainage.
C. Goal. A broad range of housing types and densities should be encouraged in order that a
choice of housing will be available to all Edmonds residents, in accordance with the
following policies:
C. I Planned Residential Development. Consider planned residential development
solutions for residential subdivisions.
C. La Consider single-family homes in a PRD configuration where significant
benefits for owner and area can be demonstrated (trees, view, open space,
etc.).
Soils and Topography
B. Goal. Future development in areas of steep slope and potentially hazardous soil
conditions should be based on site development which preserves the natural site
characteristics in accordance with the following policies:
B.2. Streets and access ways should be designed to conform to the natural topography
reduce runoff and minimize grading of the hillside.
C. Goal. Development on steep slopes or hazardous soil conditions should preserve the
natural features of the site, in accordance with the following policies:
C. 1. Grading and Filling.
C.I.a. Grading, filling, and tree cutting shall be restricted to building pads,
driveways, access ways and other impervious surfaces.
C.I.b. Grading shall not jeopardize the stability of any slope, or of an adjacent
property-
C. I.c. Only minimal amounts of cut and fill on hillsides exceeding 15% slope
should be permitted so that the natural topography can be preserved. Fill
shall not be used to create a yard on steeply sloped property.
C. I.d. Filt-and excavated dirt shall not be pushed down the slope.
C-2. Building Construction.
C.2.a. Buildings on slopes of 15% or greater shall be designed to cause minimum
disruption to the natural topography.
Oaring Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 9
C.2.a. Retaining walls are discouraged on steep slopes. If they are used they should
be small and should not support construction of improvements, which do not
conform to the topography.
C.2.a. Water detention devices shall be used to maintain the velocity of runoff at
predevelopment levels.
C.3. Erosion Control.
C.3.a. Temporary measures shall be taken to reduce erosion during construction.
C.3.b. Natural vegetation should be preserved wherever possible to reduce erosion
and stabilize slopes, particularly on the downhill property line.
C.3.c. Slopes should be stabilized with deep-rooted vegetation and mulch, or other
materials to prevent erosion and siltation of drainage ways.
1. Comprehensive Plan Analysis
a) Facts and Conclusions:
(1) Staff worked with the applicant to ensure that the roadway was designed to
conform to the existing natural topography.
(2) As established with the approval of the PRD, the homes proposed to be built in
the Madrona Cove PRD demonstrate compliance with the Comprehensive Plan
policies as they relate to Residential Development and Soils and Topography.
(3) The proposed Variance will not allow development that encroaches onto any
adjacent property's view or privacy.
(4) The proposed Variance complies with the policies of the Comprehensive Plan as
they relate to Residential Development and Soils and Topography.
C. STATE ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT (SEPA)
1. Fact: The proposed variance does not require SEPA review.
2. Conclusion: The applicant and the City have complied with SEPA regulations.
D. EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE (ECDC) COMPLIANCE
1. Zoning Standards
a) Facts:
(1) Though the site was developed as part of a PRD, the height limit for the
underlying zone applies. The site development standards established by ECDC
16.20.030 establishes a maximum height of 25 feet from the average original
grade. Refer to the definition of height in ECDC 21.40.030.
(2) The applicant may request a variance from the maximum 25 feet via the variance
process as described in ECDC 20.85.
earing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 10
b) Conclusion:
The applicant is requesting a height variance of 0.7 foot as described in Exhibit 24.
2. Compliance with the Variance Criteria
ECDC Chapter 20.85 (Variances) states an applicant may request a variance from the
standards of this Chapter pursuant to the procedures set forth in ECDC Chapter 20.85.
Chapter 20.85 of the ECDC also sets forth the mechanism whereby a provision of the
Code may be varied on a case -by -case basis if the application demonstrates compliance
with stated criteria.
a) Facts:
(1) ECDC Section 20.85.010 establishes the decisional criteria with which a variance
request must comply in order to be granted by the Hearing Examiner. These
criteria include: a special circumstance must exist; no special privilege is granted;
the proposal is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code; the
proposal will not be detrimental and is the minimum necessary.
(2) The applicant has addressed each of these criteria in Exhibit 24, Attachment A. A
site plan and an elevation view have been included as Exhibit 24, Attachments B
and C. Height calculations show the average existing grade, the 25' maximum
height limit from original grade, and the actual height of the proposed house.
(3) The PRD approval authorizes the use of five different home designs for the
development. Specific plans were not required to be used on specific lots.
(4) In an effort to make sure the variance request was the minimum necessary, the
applicant has selected a floor plan from the approved plans that minimizes the
request as well as addresses the specific needs of each property for vehicular and
pedestrian access.
(5) The selected house design for this lot, reviewed and approved through the review
of a PRD, is a "garage under" design that has two floors in addition to a below
grade garage. This house style has a smaller footprint than the other houses
approved for Madrona Cove. The smaller footprint means that less grading is
necessary in placing the house on the lot. In order to provide enough square
footage in the home, though, the house needs to be taller.
(6) The applicant states that, as measured from the building pad to the top of the
house, the total height of the house will be 30.5'. Refer to the elevation drawing
(see Exhibit 24, Attachment 5). As measured from average existing grade, the
height of the proposed house is 26.75', which requires a 1.75' variance.
(7) The relationship of the finished floor elevations of the house to the finished grade
elevations is detailed on the elevation view (Exhibit 24, Attachment 5). The level
of the entrance into the garage from the front of the house is significantly lower
than the finished grade level at the rear of the house, which is roughly equivalent
to the floor level of the second story of the home.
0
earing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page I I
(8) Another way to explain this is that it is a house that has direct, at grade access to
the garage from the front and direct, at grade access to the second level from the
rear, which is the main living floor. This design aspect, which follows the
existing topography, also helps to minimize grading on the lot.
(9) Lot 18 backs up to a steep hillside with a variety of mature vegetation that has
been designated as open space. The lot slopes up substantially from the front of
the lot to the rear (west to east) with the steepest grade near the rear of the lot. .
b) Conclusions: Examiner's Responses to the Variance Criteria
(1) Special Circumstances
The Madrona Cove PRD site was developed in response to it's varied topography
and mature vegetation. The layout of the lots was created so that the lots are on
the flattest portions of the site and significant portions of the site can be retained
with existing mature vegetation. Existing grade on the subject lot rises abruptly
from the back of the- driveway at an average grade of 18% across the building pad
envelope. This is one of five "valley" lots at the end of Pioneer Way. The back of
the lot is a transition area from a critical area steep slope, which is being preserved
as permanent open space / NGPA within the approved PRD. In order for the
home to fit this unique topography, the lot must be either substantially cut at the
extreme rear with a high rockery at the rear lot line, or alternatively the home will
be "stair -step" graded into the hillside. The latter method will have the least
amount of grading on the rear portion of the lot and the adjacent steep slope area.
(2) Special Privilege
The variance will allow for the construction of a residence that is consistent with
the house designs approved through the PRD process. These approve designs are
consistent with the Single Family Design Criteria found in ECDC 20.35, which
ensure that homes consistent with the aesthetic values of this community and
neighborhood are built. No additional views or other benefits are being permitted
by the approval of this height variance.
(3) Zoning Code
The zoning code allows for single-family residential development. The proposed
residence is consistent with single-family development. In addition, the variance
will allow a house that is consistent with the design of the houses reviewed and
approved. through the Madrona Cove PRD process.
(4) Comprehensive Plan
See section B of this report for how the proposed variance complies with the goals
and policies of the Comprehensive Plan.
Wing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 12
(5) Not Detrimental
No views will be blocked or privacy invaded from the proposed development onto
existing development by the approval of the proposed height variance. The
proposed variance is not detrimental or injurious to any adjacent property owners.
(6) Minimum Required
A variance of 0.7' is the minimum necessary to accommodate a three-story
(garage underibasement structure) on the subject lot and provide proper drainage.
(Refer to Exhibit 24, Attachments A - Q. The applicant has demonstrated that
the requested variance is the minimum necessary.
DECISION:
Based upon the foregoing findings and conclusions, the request for a 0.7' height variance is
approved.
Entered this 22nd day of December 2003 pursuant to the authority granted the Hearings
Examiner under Chapter 20. 100 of the Community Development Code of the City of Edmonds.
70'_' 01 lt_�
Ron McConnell, FAI�P
Hearing Examiner
RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing reconsideration and
appeal. Any person wishing to file or respond to a recommendation or appeal should contact
the Planning Department for further procedural information.
REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION:
Section 20.100.010.G allows for the Hearing Examiner to reconsider his decision or
recommendation if a written request is filed within ten (10) working days of the date of the
initial decision by any person who attends the public hearing and signs the attendance register
and/or presents testimony or by any person holding an ownership interest in a tract of land
which is the subject of such decision or recommendation. The reconsideration request must
cite specific references to the findings and/or the criteria contained in the ordinances
governing the type of application being reviewed.
*aring Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 13
APPF.Al.q-
Section 20.105.020.A & B describe how appeals of a Hearing Examiner decision or
recommendation shall be made. The appeal shall be made in writing, and shall include the
decision being appealed along with the name of the project and the date of the decision, the
name of the individual or group appealing the decision, their interest in the matter, and
reasons why the appellant believes the decision to be wrong. The appeal must be filed with
the Community Development Director within ten (10) working days after the date of the
decision being appealed.
TIME LIMITS FOR RECONSIDERATION AND APPEAL:
The time limits for Reconsideration and Appeals run concurrently. If a request for
reconsideration is filed before the time limit for filing an appeal has expired, the time clock
for filing an appeal is stopped until a decision on the reconsideration request is completed.
Once the Hearing Examiner has issued his decision on the reconsideration request, the time
clock for filing an appeal continues from the point it was stopped. For example, if a
reconsideration request is filed on day 5 of the appeal period, an individual would have 9
more days in which to file an appeal after the Hearing Examiner issues his decision on the
reconsideration request.
LAPSE OF APPROVAL:
Section 20.05.020.0 states 'Unless the owner obtains a building permit, or if no building is
required, substantially commences the use allowed within one year from the date of approval,
the conditional use permit shall expire and be null and void, unless the owner files an
application for an extension of the time before the expiration date.'
NOTICE TO COUNTY ASSESSOR:
The property owner may as a result of the decision rendered by the Hearing Examiner request
a change in the valuation of the property by the Snohomish County Assessors Office.
EXHIBITS:
The following exhibits were offered and entered into the record.
I . Planning Division Advisory Report, dated 9/25/03
2. Letter from Pauline & Charles DeWarne, dated 9/27/03
3. Letter from Desmond Call, dated 9/27/03
4. Letter from Sandra Nichols, dated 9/29/03
5. Email from Matthew & Tracie Douglas, dated 10/1/03
6. Email from Dr. Ronald Manger, dated 10/1/03
7. Email from Marilyn & Ross Conley, dated 10/1/03
8. Letter from David Thorpe & Laura Mason, dated 10/1/03
9. Letter from Karen Biermanski, dated 10/29/03
10. Letter from Phoenix Development, dated 10/20/03, with attached amendment to the
variance request
Oaring Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
11. Staff Memorandum, dated 10/29/03
12. Update Table showing revised variance requests
13. Madrona Cove Comparative Matrix for Variance Requests
14. Four photos of Pioneer Way & Shell Valley Rd. duplexes
15. Grading Plan
16. Site Plan (oversized)
17. Four photos showing existing edge conditions
18. Photo collage of homes on Pioneer Way
19. Letter from Matthew Douglas, dated 10/29/03, with attachment
20A. Arguments re: variance criteria submitted by Don Kreiman
20B. Arguments re: PRD submitted by Don Kreiman
20C. Statements of Fact submitted by Don Kreiman
21. Staff Memorandum, dated 11/14/03
22. Update Table showing 11/13/03 revisions to the variance requests.
23. Site Plan showing withdrawn requests
24. Revised requests for Lots 18 & 22 from Robert McBride, dated 11/14/03
25. Madrona Cove Variance Request Table
26. Elevations of homes to be constructed on Lots 15, 16, & 18 - 22
PARTIES OF RECORD:
Robert McBride
Phoenix Development Inc.
PO Box 3167
Lynnwood, WA 98046
Pauline & Charles DeWarne
20829 Hillcrest P1.
Edmonds, WA 98026-6914
Sandra Nichols
2150886 1h Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Dr. Ronald Manger
21026 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
David Thorpe &Laura Mason
21127 Shell Valley Road
Edmonds, WA 98026
Don Kreiman
2400695 th Place W
Edmonds, WA 98020
Dr. and Mrs. Suchert
54012 1h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Desmond Call
8732 2091h pl. SW
Edmonds, WA 98026-6911
Matthew & Tracie Douglas
21021 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Marilyn & Ross Conley
21116 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Karen Biermanski
8129 Frederick Place
Edmonds, WA 98026
Eric Dickerson
21020 Pioneer Way
Edmonds, WA 98026
Page 14
Wing Examiner Decision
Case No. V-03-104
Page 15
Troy Stafford John McLain
8602 Main St. 21109 Pioneer
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
David Moore Rich Demeroutis
8608 Main St. 921 Pine St.
Edmonds, WA 98026 Edmonds, WA 98026
Jim Egge
Bob Vick
10807 25" St. SE
Phoenix Development, Inc.
Everett, WA 98205
PO Box 3167
Lynnwood, WA 98046
Mary Jo Sakoi
Ray Martin
21005 Pioneer Way
18704 94'h West
Edmonds, WA 98026
Edmonds, WA 980026
Finis Tupper Roger Hertrich
711 Daley 1020 Puget Drive
Edmonds, WA 98020 Edmonds, WA 98020
Planning Division
City d9EdmQndS.,,,
Development Services. Department
Planning Division:
Phone: 425.771-0220
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.
7lie purpose of the Checklist is to enable City staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The information
needed to complete the Checklist should be easily
available. from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas iriv-9I-oQes1-,E WpV,- Qr soil
,.Surveys).
I AUG 2 3 2012
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must- fill out the checklist.sign and date it, and submit it
tcothe City. The City will review the checklist, Make a
Pr6c 'site visit and maki'a determina . tion: of the
.subsequent steps necessary to complete a development
permit a0plication.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signe4 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
information (e.g. site plan, topography map, etc.) or
studies in 6onJunction with this -.-Checklist to assistant staff
in co mnletin . a , t heir nmli�mi assessment of the she
f, t h M. L; L U N 4 " th
The undersigned applicant, and his/ber/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
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.
Ilomy signature, I cer*. that ithe information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
wledge and that I am authorized to file this appli a *on con ;he behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATURE OF APPLICANVAGENTLm-ya 1001t VXnatYDATE 11-Hlog
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/Appfteant:.
Name
cN be 7
Street Address
mA. qWCHU
Cityl State . zip
Appli.cant-Represen.tative.-
aunt
Name
Street Address
city State zip
Telephone:
filhad ss (optional): J0YtAfia\f)dQQikbQpaa. Email Address (optional):
I Lon
Critical Areas Checklistdoc/3.191001
PA File No:
x-
&-itical Areas'!CChec'klisto
Site Infomation (soils/topo-graphy/hydrology/ vegetation),.
1. Site Address/ Locati.on: P3,n-1.9-
2. Property Tax Account Number: bI 66 001:��.. 01 09=1�
CG
Approximate S�i� Size (acres Pr%square fiaet):,
3.
4. Is d-ds site currentIv developed? yes; Ao.
If yes, how is site developed?'�--MA di o'l-,
4
5. Describe the general, site topog raphy. 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 ffm 15% and less am 30% a vertical rise. of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater thart 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Depth:
7. Site contains areasiof seasonai standing water. Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?.
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
round?
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across. the. grounds surface? Flowsare y
Flows are seasonal? Mhat time of year?.
10. Site is primarily: forested X meadow shrubs., X mixed
urban landscaped (lawnAmbs etc)
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
W
A-F Z 7M
,p
_d w: hPIP
.4
K
C'
chfical I#Ote t- I im.
Y:
''tL-d.
ide"nde"hifid ir
.7 _7',
Site i�v
rt
ithih d'
q
5
MONA
A
W .
MV
M
criticaj Areas checklisLdoc/3-19-Mi
f
City of Edmonds
Critical Areas Determination
Applicant: Phoenix Development Inc Determination #: CA-02-174.
Site Location: 8526 Main St (5.23 acres) Property Tax Acct 3736 005 0
Project Description: I Non -Project Specific
Determination: Study Required:
During review and inspection of the subject site, it was found that the sife appears to contain
and/or is adjacent to a number of critical areas, induding.possible wetland soils and vegetation
pursuant to Chapter 20. 1 5B 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 site contains wetlands.oils 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:
I i Classify the stream/wetiand.
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 streamotwetland, the buffer and the' building setback.
4V 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 20-15B.049CA. A / I
Name
Signature
Date
L
3736-005-001-01
74
Phoenix Dev.
ST
"'-115/lF/2'003
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
PEPPERWOOD
RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
E-10075
May 14, 2002
PREPARED FOR
PHOENIX DEVELOPMENT, INC.
ya- -
7
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
"7
,Z)HR-EET FLE
IMPORTANT INFORMATION
ABOUT YOUR
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT
More construction problernsare 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 GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING
REPORT IS BASED -ON A UNIOUE SET
OF PROJECT -SPECIFIC FACTORS
A geotechnical engineering reportis 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. of 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.
Geotechnical engineers cannot accept responsibility for problems
which may develop if they a4 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 subsurface.conditions. -their likely reaction to
proposed construction activity, and appropriate founda-
tion design. Even under optimal circumstances actual
conditions may differ from those infe ' rred 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 consultancto 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
GEOTECH N ICA L 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 I ther than that originally contemplated without first conferring
with the geotechnical engineer.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Geofechnical Engineers. Goologists & Environmenial Scientists
May 14, 2002 E-10075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
0
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
Dear Ms. Quade:
W
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 proposdd
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 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,
EA
CONSULTANTS, INC.
E
Project Manager
RAqme
Earth consultants, Inc.
--1
TABLE OF CONTENTS
E-10075
PAGE
INTRODUCTION.................................................................................................... 1
General........................................................................................................... 1
ProigctDescription ............................................................................................. 1
SITECONDITIONS ................................................................................................. 2
Surface.................................................................................... I ........................ 2
SteepSlope Evaluation ...................................................................................... 3
Subsurface................................................................................. 3
Groundwater....................................................................................... 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 Desian Considerations ...... ; .................................................................... 10
Slab -on -Grade Floors ........................................................................................ 11
SiteDrainage ......................................................... \ .......................................... 11
Excavationsand Slopes .................................................................................... 1
Utility Trench Backfill ........................................................................................ 12
Rockeries...................................................................................................... 13
PavementAreas ...................................................................................... ) ......... 14
LIMITATIONS...................... I ................................................................................. 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 Al Legend
Plates A2 through Al 2 Test Pit Logs
Appendix B Laboratory Test Results
Plate 131 Grain Size Analyses
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
. PEPPERWOOD
RESIDEN11AL DEVELOPMENT
8526 MAIN STREET
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
iocations 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 r6ckery may be
located on the existing slopes.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERNG 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 Ro6keries 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
Surftce
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 s.everal 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 6 f -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 cor.ner 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 (110) to twelve (112) 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.
I I 't I . -'1)
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEPJNG 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 exc , avated 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 Al2, 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
Groundwater
Groundv%oter 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 (typical ly,October through May).
Laboratory Testing
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 ENGINEENNG 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 recomme ndations are provided in
the Steep Slope Buffer and Foundations sections of this report. Preliminary rockery
design recommend ations'are provided in the Rockedes 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,.constr uction of the proposed storm water detention vault is feasible from a
geotechnical standpoint. Medium dense todense 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%ate'r seepage may be encountered in the excavation for
the storm water detention vault. However, in our opinion, groundv%ater 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 ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc.
May 14, 2002
E-1 0075
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.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 (110), 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-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 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 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 0 2) 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 ENGINEERING STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002, Page 9
Provided the foundations are placed in accordanc e 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
supportrig 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 facto r-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 overex.cavation 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 I oading. 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 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 % 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 (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 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 ENGINEEFING 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 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 supporled 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 four -inch 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. IrIterceptor 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 ENGINEEFJNG STUDY
Phoenix Development, Inc. E-10075
May 14, 2002 Page 12
Excavations and Slopes
The following informatio n 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 steeper 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 2H: 1 V. 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.
Utilily 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-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 supporied 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
0 2) inches above the crown of the pipe before heavy compaction equipment is brought
into use. The remainder of the backf ill 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 incorporaled 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 rocke'ries 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.
GEOTIECHNICAL ENGINEEFUNG 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 proofrollin'g 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 requiee 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 analys6s, 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 Constiltants, 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
I o o I Base Material or Base Rock
1. 0. . .
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 15*57-91 (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 UTILITY TRENCH FILL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington.
Prol. NO. 100775 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. 1
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 Consultants, Inc.
GRAPH
LETTER
MAJOR DIVISIONS
iSYMBOL
SYMBOL
TYPICAL DESCRIPTION
P C3 C3 (
GW
Well -Graded Gravels, Gravel -Sand
Gravel
�4.�OAOA
gW
Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
And
Clean Gravels
41111111k q&
Poorly -Graded Gravels, Gravel -
Gravelly
(little or no fines)
Coarse
Soils
7"-g-p—
Sand Mixtures, Little Or No Fines
Grained
GM
Silty Gravels, Gravel - Sand -
Soils
More Than
50% Coarse
Gravels With
Mae
g M
Silt Mixtures
Vraction
Fines (appreciable
G
�gc
Clayey Gravels. Gravel - Sand -
Retained On
amount of tines) -
No. 4 Sieve
V
��
Clay Mixtures
Sand
Sw
Well -Graded Sands, Gravblly
And
Clean Sand
SW
Sands, Little Or No Fines
More Than
Sandy
Soils
I little or no fines)
SP
Poo ly-Graded Sands, Gravelly
50% Material
SP
Sands, Little Or No Fines
Larger Than
More Than
SM
No. 200 Sieve
50% Coarse
Sands With
SM
Silty Sands. Sand - Sift Mixtures
Size
Fraction
Fines (appreciable
aw
SC
SC
Clayey Sands, Sand -Clay Mixtures
Passing No. 4
Sieve
amount of fines)
.
Inorganic Silts & Very Fine Sands, Rock Flotr,Silty-
MI
Clayey,Fine Sands; Clayey Silts w/ Slight P lasticity
Fine
Silts Liquid Limit
L
Inorganic Clays Of Low To Medium Plasticity,
Grained
And Less Than 50
Cl
Gravelly Clays. Sandy Clays, Silty Clays, Lean
Soils
Clays
Organic Silts And Organic
Silty Clays Of Low, Plasticity
MH
Inorganic Silts. Micaceous Or Diatomaceous Fire
.More Than
Mh
Sand Or Silty Soils
50% Material
Smaller Tfan
Silts Liquid Limit
And
Inorganic Clays Of High
No. 200 Sieve
Greater Than, 50
Clays
_�H —�c h
Plasticity, Fat Clays
Size
7Z Z Z Z
OH
Organic Clays Of Medium To'High
R
Oh
Plasticity, Organic Silts
L1_1_' LI-1k, A1.1-j
P
Peat, Humus, Swamp Soils
Highly Organic SoiI6
Pt
With High Organic Contents
Topsoil
4 *11 41
Humus And'Duff Layer
Fill
Hi$,hly 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 bordedine soll claseffication. ,
C
TORVANE READING, tsf
2' O.D. SPLIT SPOON SAMPLER
qu
PENETROMETER READING, tsf
W
MOISTURE, % dry weight
24' I.D. RING OR SHELBY TUBE.SAMIPLER
P
SAMPLER PUSHED
SAMPLE NOT RECOVERED
WATER OBSERVATION WELL
pcf
DRY DENSITY, lbs. per cubic ft.
LL�
LIQUID LIMIT, %
sZ DEPTH OF ENCOUNTERED GROUNDWATER
P1
PLASTIC INDEX
DURING EXCAVATION
7 SUBSEQUENT GROUNDWATER LEVEL W/ DATE
Earth Consultants Inc. LEGEND
Proj. No. 100751 Date Apr. 2002 1 Plate Al
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Pepperwood
Sheet of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
� KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-1
Excavation Contactor
UniversalLand
Ground Surface Elevation:
420'.
Wes:
General
Notes
W
M
.2 -5
�Q
E
Cn
CL
E
(0
-1.0
E
(0
Surfaoe. Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": grass
13.3
16.4
15.4
14.5
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-30% fines
ML
Gray sandy SILT, medium dense, moist
SM
-mottlinq at 5
Gray silfy SAND, medium dense to dense, moist
Test pit terminated at 7.5 feet below e)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
NOTES:
Elevations estimated by a Topographic Site Plan provided by the
Client Survey by Group Four Inc. dated 1/6/99.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date Apri12002
checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate A2
Subsurface condiltions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modffied by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responwbility for the use or interpretation by others of
__#_q - 44'i. I-
Tesf Pit Log
Project Name:
Pepperwood
Sheet or
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
1 KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-2
Excavation Contactor.
Universal Land
Ground Surface ELm�ation:
424'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
(0/11)
2
'r-
rL E
E! >'
CL
0- G_ E
, a
U)
0) 0
, , M
rn E
=) >'
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 19': ferns
11.9
........
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-roots may e)dend to 3'
mottling at 4'
SM
Brown silty SAND, dense, moist
-15% fines
Test pit terminated at 7.0 feet below eAsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Eafth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Pr4 No. 10075 'T_Z�
GLS
Date April 2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10102
Piate A3
--WMUrtaoe OMMons depKIed represent our observ"-ns at the Ume and location of this wploratory hole, modiffied by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and loications. We cannot accept responsibility forthe use or interpretation by others of
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
PeppenNood
Sheet of
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
1 KCS
Date.
3/28/02
Pit No.:
TP-3
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
416'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M)
0 -6
8
cL E
120 >,
T
CL
E
M
U)
-6
'0
E
>'
(n
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": trees and fems
10.6
7.1
........
T'.
2
3
4
5
6
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
-wiffi 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.
& FXM"Ul�ftral -',Ckv4L%%
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prq. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date April 2002
Che&ed KCS
Date 4/10102
Plate A4
Stmufface corMons depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)pbratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
Luc�g=- ITZw:�tn=rily representative of other tknes and.bcations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
Test 'Pit Log
"ect Nanie:
Pepperwood -T
Sheet of
1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-4
Excavation Contactor-
Universal Land
Ground Surfaoe Elevation:
404'
Notes:
General
Notes
w
(0/0)
.2 -6
�r- .0
OF E
6
2
CL
E
CO
-6
�O
E
>'
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 4": brush debris
11.2
7.7
16.9
-.0
2
3
4
5
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)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during excavation.
Fx-wh Consultants Inc.
& Rrmnlnnx�ral
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prq- NO. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date April 2002
ched(ed KCS
[�e 4/10/02
Plate A5
�Suosurtaoe conortions; oepictea represent our observations at the Urne and location of this exploiattory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
f
.�grnent-�� are not neoessarily representative of other tirnes and locations. We cannot acoept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
,fw —4�4 — thi. L--
TestPit Log
0
6
W
t
Prciect Nam:
Pepperwood -T
Sheet of
I
Job No.
10075
Logged by-.
KCS
Date.
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-5
Excavation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
395'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
0
:E �O
CL E
T >1
CL
E
Q Zno
(n -6
, -. -0
rn E
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
10.8
10.8
TUAITI
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.
FA-WhConsultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prci- No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date April'20 02
ched(ed KCS
Date 4/10102
Plate A6
ZWOSuffam cw=ons dq'xaeO represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
Vc,ont 1��wUtr=rily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibil4 for the use or interpretation by others of
t Pit Log
Project: Name:
Pepperwood
Sheet Of
1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
1 KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-6
Excavation Contactoc
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
395'
Notes.
General
Notes
W
2- E,
CL
u- E
CO
CO
0.0
in E
Z) >�
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 2": grass
T.
-,Of 4
2
3
4
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.
Fx-Mh Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Prui..No. 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date Apri12002
checked KCS I
Date 4/10/02
Plate A7
Subsurfacie conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and localikin of this e):p1oratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
judgment They are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
�OM—A — 4hi. t—
Test Pit Log
Project Nam:
heet
Pepperwood 71
1
-lob No.
T
LoMed by-,
Date:
Test Pit No.:
10075
KCS
3128102
TP-7
Excavation Contactor
Ground Surface Elevation:
Universal Land
408'
Notes:
1!
-6
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod'7': grass
General
Notes
W
cL E
12 >-
CL
E
M
n
E
>'
CO
CO
SM
Brown silty SAND with gravel, loose, moist
SP
Brown poorly graded SAND with gravel, dense, moist
2
5-9
lv�
Or
4
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.
Test Pit Log
Earth Consultants Inc.
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
7Prq- No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date Apri12002
amcked KCS
Date 4/10/02
A8
,�uusurTaoe corKnuons aep4aeo represent our onservations at the time and location of this wooratory hoie, modified by engineering tes;ts, anaWm and
jtj!Lu�t 1�2 arLnot necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
44,i. I—
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%,Qter 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 modifyor
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.
A
FOUS , T
rk
G
LODY Llf
VY
-i
ST
T R
A.
RRAUEM
SIEW 13
All
A
.0
'24
L
I uL
ST,
'W' �4
L
Liz
a;j
OWMI
4—
Z
mitt -
ELU�'
WSo
L 4
X
J
_
ST 7
ST'F
&DAR
UY
uY.
�WCE d- ST
W
—.5u j'. I
214tH
_2 115r
'09 7
21 law
IOU
YlUt.
00A
xt
3..
<
ST
218TH
ST
FIR
7.
30
P::�
I"W'SI
22(
TH". ST
WWI
qt
ZN—TWIL
MST et
Pt,
00
g
.91
ST
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 Consultants, Inc.
Geotechnical Engineers, C--ologists & Environmental Scientists
Vicinity Map
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
Proj. No. 10075
Checked RAC
Date 4112/02
Plate 1
!_1
LEGEND
390
J 10
I v I"
7.
TP-1—ml —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.
420
Approximate Scale
77=
0 50 100 200ft.
Earth Consultants, Inc.
Geoted"cal Engmeers. Geologists & Environmental Scie-ViSts
Test Pit Location Plan
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Drwn. GLS
Date April 2002
Proj. No. 10075
checked RAC
Date 4112J02
Plate 2
Slope To Drain
6 inch min.
7 7,
00
CL
18 inch min.
4 inch min.
Diameter, 0
Perforated Pipe
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 flexible
corrugated plastic pipe. Do not tie building downspout drains into footing
lines. Wrap with Miraft 140 Filter Fabric or equivalent
TYPICAL FOOTING SUBDRAIN DETAIL
Earth Consultants Inc. Pepperwood
Ce"od"cal Enorooem C&01D� & En%4r0mvWM1 Sck"IMS Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075 [D-rwn. GLS Date Apr. 2002 Checked RAc [Date '4/12/02 Plate 3
TesrPit Log
Project Name:
Pepperwood 1
Sheet of
1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by:
KCS
Date:
3/28/02-
Test Pit No.:
TP-8
Excavation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
416!
Notes:
General
Notes
w
M
-6
-0
CL
12 E
(n
A!
El CL
E
Ca
Z5 E
Cn
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)dsbng grade. No groundwater
encountered during e)cavation.
Eafth Consultants'Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proi. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date Apri12002
checked KC S
Date 4/10/02
Plate A9
butisurtaos conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this e)pbratory hole, modified by engineering tests, analysis and
ITa are not necessarily representative of other times and locations. We cannot accept responsibitity for the use or interpretation by others of
Test Pit Log
Project Name:
Pepperwood
Sheet of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-9
Excavation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surface Bevation:
354'
Notes:
'General
Notes
W
(OM
.2 -6
r- -0
'00- E
R CL
u- E
(n
CO
0
co E
CO
Surface Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 6': trees and blackberries
10.8
12.6
...
xxq.:
2
3
4
5
6
7
SM
Brown silty 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.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Qtmeduik-dl - Fngftwr.� Q-ob�_ & FiMrmirj".Ikk-ntIsM
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washingto6
No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date April 2002.
KCS
Date 4/10/02
Plate Al 0
Subsurface cmditions depicted
neoessa=nt our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineefing tests, anaVis and
jn�. 'Tey are not i r, representative of other tirnes and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
Tei&it Log
�Q'
Project Narne-
Pepperwood
Sheet of
1 1 1
Job No.
10075
Logged by-
KCS
Date:
3/28/02
Test Oft No.:
TP-10
Emuwation Contactor:
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
359'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
M
CL E
CL &
E
co
o
E
Surf" Conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12": ferns and trees
8.5
...
2
3
4
5
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 exravation.
Eal-th Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proi. No- 10075
Dwn- GLS
Date April2002
checked KCS
Date 4/10/02
subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exlftatory hole, fftcxffmd by engineering tests, analysis and
judgrnent They are not necessarily representative of other firries and locations. We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
.�4-4 - fm. L--
it Log
Proiect Narne.
Pepperwood
Sheet of
I 1 1
JobNo.
10075
LoWed by:-
KCS
Ekde:
3/28/02
Test Pit No.:
TP-1 1
Excavation Contactor
Universal Land
Ground Surface Elevation:
356'
Notes:
General
Notes
W
-6
.0
E
>'
S
VL CL
4, E
C) M
-6
0 n
co E
Surface conditions: Depth of Topsoil & Sod 12"Jerns, trees, blackberries
13.4
7-7
-4.4
A
2
3
4
5
6
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 e)dsting grade. No groundwater
encountered during exr-avation.
Earth Consultants Inc.
Test Pit Log
Pepperwood
Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No. 10075
Dwn. GLS
Date Apri12002
Fchecked KCS
Date 4/10/02 Tpue
All 2
Subsurface conditions depicted represent our observations at the time and location of this exploratory hole, modified by engineedrq tests, analysis and
am not necessarily repwmAaM of other firries and locations, We cannot accept responsibility for the use or interpretation by others of
APPENDIX B
LABORATORY TESTING RESULTS
E-10075
Earth Constiltants, Inc.
6 Copies
Reviewed By:
Scott D. Dinkelman, CEG
Associate Engineering Geologist
DISTRIBUTION
E-1.0075
Phoenix Development, Inc.
P.O. Box 3167
Lynnwood, Washington 98046-0958
Attention: Ms. Loree Quade
Earth ConstAtants, Inc.
DATE RECEIVED
PERMIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
USE PERMIT
NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS 19
C t.V, W
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BtAINESS
-6�cahj&l �1�
MAILING ADDRESS
T N ME/SUBDIVISION NO.
FWO- 01 — 17t
LOT NO.
LD NO.
L�D FEE $
;tct 0 SQ
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TIES P ad
RW cr:1IP1r`.'V1
�.I'ad
ZIP
TELEPHONE
I
EXISTING — PROPOSED
street Use Permit Req'd
inspection Required
REQUIRED DEDICATION alff FT
Sidewalk Required
Undergr=x1l
Wiring req Ired
.,NAME
METER SIZE,, LINE
I
SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
�o
PRV REQUIRED/
13 13
r4k*-S
114,
1
'd, I
YES NO
X
ADDRESS
ltiE zo "s;b
REMARKd
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
z
CITY
aj&-cv&q� : n,
uj
I ZIP
TELEPHONE
-gm
f6i.�41 i.AA-- PA1A1A.,r.'V2 grhe-411A&T
I%-41V1r._,1 A—
::411 1M L IF
NAME
'CB4 L#
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY
j, I I'll. DATE
CC
0
ADDRESS
9:�
D BY
FIRE REVIEWE DATE
us
CITY Z, PA
TELEPHONEqts :747?.�-
0
rL
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION �DATE'L
VARIANCE.ORCLI'L�1.1�
V-o3 - floq
SHORELINE ORADR#;
I - 110YES
INSPECTION
RE%0
ANO 1$
BOND
POSTED
—
SEPA REVIEW
COMPLETE EXEMPT
SIGN AREA
ALLOWED PROPOSED,
HEIGHT
-,ALLOW5p PROPO
;j
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT'PARCEI:,!40.
x 00-7 a
.3/0
q
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING - MECH,
LOT COVERAGE
ALLOWED
REQUIRED SETBACKS (Ff�
'IFIlEAR
`P60POSED SET ACKS (FT.)
- a
COtIMPLIANCE OR
PR9,POSED
1`1`10tp� SIDE
FRO .VT,,, 4R SIDE RE:
Ez
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
CHANGE OF USE
OK
!q to',
19,
z
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
PARKING
PIrE .
R 'D D
LOT AREA
.11 77
a
FENCE
REPAIR
CYDS FT)
REMARKS*
V-0�
DEMOLISH TANK E] OTH I
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
13 , ROCKERY. E3;
FIRE ALARM
OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTFVrM,E,XPLAIN:'
cc
TYP OVWTRUCTION,�
60
OCCUPANI
GROUP P '73
NUMBER
NUMBER.OF
CRITICAL
F--
0
OF
STORIES
DWELLING
UNITS
AREAS
NUMBER
SPECIAL INS ON JAREA...
REQUIRED
OCCUPANT
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
S
REMARKS
z
Lf
PROGRESS INSPEC71ONS PER U BC 108 ISCI 091 IRCI 09 Fl NAL IN SPECI
%1j' ST7 R� W /q
V
IF
1C, py— I LA S3 #0
VALUATION
A 4 z Fbu
Nb
5�
$
L_C>W,z_y- I OLI io-'�
Description
t,,QE E
Description
FEE
Wr Ct CV_1_ a�; cz:i, N?1�11V , OINI.
Plan (�heF� 11 k
State Surcharge
HEAr SOURCE'
GLAZING % f 0
� r . - -
LOT/ %
Al
Buildin P
City Surcharge
jjPE
14 a
,&rM,t
Z6_
PLAN CHECK NO-
VESTED DAlt -0
4
,Plumbi'n§
Base Fee
z:
aC2
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK To
Mechanical
1:
IIE
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN
Grading
71,�
(CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
PERMITAPPLICATION:
Engr. Review
ISO DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 160 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
*APPLICAW 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
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
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.
Total Amt. Due
0
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE C17YS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.,
Recording Fee
i
Receipt #
I 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-
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
CALL
This application Is not a permit unit I signed by the
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt Is acknowledged in space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
DATE SIGNED
(425)
�o FI
S SIGNA RE DATE
EaWk
LCR,1_4 �10
771-0220
-e -
R ABED B DAtE
ATTMT-IbN
Off 1333
IT IS UNLAWFULTO USE OR OCCUPYA BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTILAFINAL
INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL ORA CERTIFICATE OF OCCU-
PANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109/IBC110/IRC110.
ORIGINAL - FILE YEIIC OR
09/03 r%r%Mt%t% 11-111 A r%r% %fd%l I A r%r--
02 A 1.r1lL40% A PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
to— rag;,,
V_ j7-w-
06
W�W AW C
A'
f'7
jSAjW-AM- f.. 11 !, I I \ zr 4M�C4,
mf 'Nvj-,,,j,,_
N., 145' If Ira ZV ZSOV,67 R_V.7 j14
I;r 5�7,w
f Z ss
IW ar jq aor
C)7?
-v
-wofWMER
02\
culrow
NX�
"IvINV. Ip
.-
4E A"A"C'
41, kh
ffX`,
A
A
WALL-
f4, T
04(
.00,
4,9Cl2 V
lal
AA.
7
BY5 SF N
rrj 0 X Cc
tz
Aill N
I mt
7-M .14 A2
AV
41
44,
0.
IEKS'
4'
n. AA_ iR
\401 /717 ft 90 P�R OAD
05 tz I I
113, . — 7; — '20
BLI
TILI
T 2/ ILI
9
5' ACCE8S SEM
L ------- L E'M5W ON
I v 4015
dF7 MW A' I I jL' __ "I
crw,^ s 09 DWY -eD=-
JON V
--EAS�_MENT�LOT! L
155 STCWA( Mw� 8&9
14 111 t j96
fe
;4 A r
j, -SF
L — v 5.402
4 1
20 ri I I ---
q
I_OSSVW�� AMU 53 s
----I
v 4w-a90-6V4f_ ....... j4,,ob9 SF LI
5'-UV/rAflr
4�
1& BSBL
/jp M�
P/
'D
VlY
_U 4' 19/
79 C)?? ovvz 5 SIE NT 00 SF
7 1703 1
5-
\42�\ 37 L-4 SCAPE
1
5 49'SrCWAI 9,941N,4ar L FFER
> I
Z
00 _/
P(// 3 tF
p, /7� u -7
00 OP6ZEd 111�tld!Ml_ 17
1p, 101RIVI, Ye
/FR Az,/ / / ex v
6,429 SF 6,858 SF\
J00 00'
�R FV*AU
E� PAS
45'
T4
SEA 0/00,0 N :7 7'�
141
00Z. 47 )00
OVARZCS & P4M ?r5.699 sk,
lZjF 00-7480-000-WS-oo
PARCa
es
wy MY7 lwzj
v
N
117�j4Z4.? sw
AS I)pep
y 'IF--74
-cap S
48\S
J-r4f .95 1lq CMIC N,
oll INZ 77, R-M
4,043 SF 4,77-r SF
WATER &SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D.
CAU 42.5-771-02..20 EXT. 1326
MAINTAI I N PLAT INSTALLED EROSION CONTROL.
Al.L EXPOSED SURFACES
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 C
. j5jft()vTl0A/
j�fAVWZSV (0AY-4/1
64,TWAJt6' I
o,i,f
f
OWNERICONTRACTOR IS RESPON
CON!T-"n
FOR EROSION AND DAIi
A5
0
10' UTI L I TY
EA5EMENT
51 z r F;FVcor
A7 $Vr'r04ll
OF (-O-r
0.
13
".,
ca
fyov 67
.1 P15.43'
lb(N
bpOe LE(�AL
SITE AREA:
7 )
ZONINC7:
0
XXXX PIONEER NAY
LOT 15, MADRONA COVE
5,566 SOUARE FEET
PLANNED UNIT OEVELOPMENT
HE16,HT CALCULATION (BASE0 FROM EXISTINO ORAOE)
A=
353'
E3=
560'
C=
560,
0) =
555,
88.89 0#
7 oo qAfZ05 -TO
N 89056'23" E $6'r-(Un OA) 51-Ce,
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLINE
fowc,v -3&0 1 MATERIAL
APPROVED AS NOTED 012 5 10 15 20 50 VA56y �')fp SDR 35
QF-:l �__] �__=l Z��n
BY ENGIPERING u _j SCH-40
a
2MIA"i 1� N - 12
- --------- L07 I e) F81 0 HANCOR
Vate: CAVOI ENEERAL NOTEE-5
5EE r--.,E=
Zone tas Comer t,' Fla_gj
e
�tbacks
�uimd
Actual
Front
Sides
Rear
Other
Height
q3, p,,
Sr -,ALE-: ["=20' -
—FOOTING DRAINS NOT
TO BE TIED INTO
P45Heo Lfovtr DETENTION SYSTEM
/&&CATC5 We$&A/T
emvv6 6a4v6 REcE:IVEED
$M��T'FILE . DEC - 6 2004
LANNING PERMIT COUNTER
(;2/,
142&/4= 55-7-00'
AVER_A(�E EXISTIN(� C-RADE= 55-7x:::)O'
ACTUAL BUILDIN(� HEI(:3HT= E352.24'
MAXIMUM BUILDIN6, HEIr:-,,HT (25')
7' FROM VARIANCE #V-05-104= 552.70'
SURVE'l"OR TO PROVIDE BENGHMARK MOST
APROPRIATE FOR HEIC5,HT NVERIFICATION)
IMPERVIOUS AREAS
f;-,-'E!511:;)ENr,E �^V 1662 5aUARE FEET
C-,VF;Z0 PORCHES
1:;>f:P_IVENA'T'5
556
5OUARE
FEET
PATIO
120
501JARE
FEET
NALKNA"r5,
100
5aUARE
FEET
TOTAL 2,455 5OUARE FEET
LOT C_,OVERAC-_,E
(.LOT COVERA66E IS EASED UPON 55%' OF ENTIRE
PLAt�NED UNIT DEVELOPMENT)
1662 5OUARE FEET OF PROP05EI:;) LOT COVERAOE
(INCLUDES e)TfPUr-,TUfP-E, COVERED PORCHES, I:;>Er--,<S OVER 50",
05&'e 967T,4(& 01V 4-/ FefZ &-k-r6a(012- Sr,411ew-4
MAI
aTREE! FILE',
RE:CEIVEr)
QkC - 6 2004
PE�MIT COUNTER
0
0.