23334 HIGHWAY 99.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
14061
23334 HWY 99
RESUB
404 [-YP/Yf orthshore Traffic Consultants JUN 2 3 2008
3610 209th Place SE I"WNQ ENT
0
VJ- Bothell, Washington 98021 F%VO%N
fti (206) 909-5222
May 23, 2008 CITY copy
Mr. G. Patrick Morris
ME@Martin, LLC
23723 112'h Place West
Woodway, Washington 98020
Ph: (206) 542-4411
Cell: (206) 841-4400
Re: Traffic Study for Edmonds Retail Center Development in Edmonds, WA
NTC Project No. 08TO2
Dear Mr. Morris:
This letter report summarizes the traffic impact analysis conducted for the proposed Edmonds
Retail Shopping Center development. The site of the proposed development is located on the
northwest quadrant of the SR-99 and 234th Street SW intersection in Edmonds, Washington.
This report addresses the traffic analysis conducted for the proposed development including trip
generation and distribution, and mitigation requirements in accordance with the City of Edmonds
Traffic Analysis Guidelines.
Proposed Site Development and Access
The proposed development will include the development and construction of approximately
16,930 square feet of retail floor area. The project site is currently a vacant lot. Access to the
existing street system will be provided by a single site access driveway to SR-99 located
approximately 160 feet north of the 234th Street SW. The project site is located on the west side
of SR-99 directly north of 234th Street SW. The intersections of SR-99 and 234th Street SW and
the proposed site access, are and will be unsignalized, respectively, with stop sign control on the
minor approaches.
Figure 1 shows the site vicinity of the proposed development within the local arterial street
network. Figure 2 shows the proposed site plan for the proposed development. The planned
completion and occupation of the project development is the horizon year 2009.
Mr: G. Patrick Morris
May 23, 2008
Page 2
EXISTING CONDITIONS
Street System
Primary access to the proposed development will occur along SR-99, a north -south, seven -lane
principal arterial with a posted speed limit of 40 mph, carrying approximately 40,000 vehicles
per day (vpd) in the project vicinity. State Route 99 provides local and regional access to
communities located to the north and south of the project site.
To the south of the project site is 234th Street SW, a two-lane east -west local access street with a
posted speed limit of 25 mph that carries approximately 300 Vpd in the project vicinity. 234 1h
Street SW serves as the primary connection to downtown Edmonds and vicinity and resideritial
communities to the east.
Located south of the project site is SR-104 and North 205 1h Street. Access to communities west
of the project site is provided by SR-104, a five -lane east -west principal arterial with a posted
speed limit of 40 mph that carries approximately 25,000 vpd in the project vicinity. North 20501
Street is an east -west secondary arterial that merges into SR- 104 east of SR-99, and serves as the
primary connection to 1-5 to the south of the project site.
TRAFFIC VOLUME FORECASTS
Trip Generation
Trip generation estimates for the proposed Edmonds Shopping Center were derived from trip
generation rates published in the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
Manual, 7th Edition, 2003, under Land Use Code 820 (Shopping Center) and the proposed
square footage (16,930 SF) of the development. The trip generation analysis indicates that the
proposed shopping center development will generate 727 gross daily trips of which 63 would
occur during the p.m. peak hour.
A pass -by reduction factor of 65 percent was applied to the gross trip generation of the shopping
center to account for trips extracted from the existing traffic traveling on the adjacent arterial
street system. The pass -by factor for the proposed development is obtained by using the pass -by
equation for Shopping Center (Land Use Code 820) as published in the ITE Trip Generation
Handbook, March 2001 (Ref. Table 5.5, p.43). The resulting pass -by rate is consistent with the
proposed square footage of the retail center, since smaller centers tend to attract higher pass -by
trips as compared to larger regional centers which are primary destinations.
C:\Sherm\Northshore TC\2008 Projects\08TO2 Morris Edmonds Retail\Edmonds Retail Report-060408.doc
Mr: G. Patrick Morris
May 23, 2008
Page 3
Applying the pass -by rate factor results in a net new trip generation of 254 average daily trips and
22 p.m. peak hour trips. The resulting trip values are also consistent with the trip generation
(approx. 20 p.m. peak trips) calculated using the net new trip rate (1.21 trips per 1,000 SIT)
identified in Table 4 of the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study, Henderson, Young, and
Company, April 15, 2003 (see page 18, Column 5, Land Use Code 820, Shopping Center).
The results of the trip generation calculations for the proposed uses along with their pass -by trip
reductions are summarized in Table 1.
Table 1
Trip Generation Summary
Trip Description
ADT
PM Peak Hour
Gross Trips
-Shopping Center (16,930 SF)
727
63
- Pass -By Trips (Less
(473)
(41)
-Net New Trips
254
22
Therefore, the proposed development is expected to generate a net total of 254 average daily trips
(ADT) with 22 trips occurring during the p.m. peak hour. The detailed trip generation analysis
and summary for the daily and p.m. peak hour is shown in the appendices of this report.
Trip Distribution
The trip distribution of project traffic is based on existing travel patterns in the project vicinity
and the primary roadway connections to the regional arterial system from the project site. The
trip distribution indicates that approximately 60 percent of the project traffic is destined to the
north along SR-99, with the remaining 40 percent traveling to the south of the project.
Approximately 15 percent of the traffic destined northbound will head east along 230th Street
SW. Approximately 7 and 8 percent of the traffic destined south will travel east and west along
234'h Street SW, respectively.
Figure 3 shows the trip distribution of development traffic used for the traffic analysis. Figure 4
depicts the p.m. peak hour trip assignment for the new and pass -by trips generated by the project.
Figure 5 shows the net total project trip assignment which combines the net new trips with the
pass -by trips. The tabular summaries of the trip assignments are attached in the Appendix of this
report.
CASherm\Northshore TC\2008 Projects\08T02 Morris Edmonds Retail\Edmonds Retail Report-060408.doc
Mr: G. Patrick Morris
May 23, 2008
Page 4
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Background Traffic Growth
As requested by the City of Edmonds, current p.m. peak hour turn movement counts were
obtained for the intersection of 234th Street SW with SR-99. The new p.m. peak hour counts
were conducted on March 19, 2008 during the p.m. peak hours. The detailed traffic counts are
attached in the Appendix of this report.
Historic traffic growth trends shown for average daily traffic (ADT) volumes documented by
WSDOT indicated no traffic growth projected along SR-99 between 2003 and 2006. However,
for the purposes of the level of service analysis conducted for this report and to estimate future
traffic volumes for the project buildout years (2009 and 2014), an annual compounding growth
factor of one (1%) percent was applied to existing volumes to account for background traffic and
to determine baseline future traffic volumes at the study intersection along SR-99.
No additional pipeline project traffic from adjacent developments were identified as additional
background traffic growth based on discussions with City of Edmonds staff.
Level of Service Analysis
As suggested by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer, level of service (LOS) analyses were
conducted for the subject SR-99 intersection at 234 th Street SW and the site access driveway on
SR-99. The LOS analysis was performed for the weekday p.m. peak hour under the year 2009
(buildout) and 2014-with-project conditions (five years after buildout), as required by City of
Edmonds Traffic Analysis requirements.
All LOS analysis calculations utilize the methodology outlined in the 2000 Highway Capacity
Manual Update, Special Report 209, Transportation Research Board and Synchro, support
software developed by Trafficware. Table 2 summarizes the LOS analysis conducted for the
proposed -development.
CASherm\Northshore TC\2008 Projects\08TO2 Morris Edmonds Retail\Edmonds Retail Report-060408.doc
Mr G. Patrick Morris
May 23, 2008
Page 5
Table 2
Level of Service Summary
Analysis Scenario
Intersection with SR 99
234 th Street SW
Access Driveway
2008 Existing
LOS E (41.2 sec)
n/a
2009 Baseline
LOS E (42.3 sec)
n/a
2009 with Project
LOSE (41.4 sec)*
LOS C (20.6 sec)
2014 Baselle
LOS E (46.8 sec)
n/a
2014 with Project
LOS E (46.8 sec)
LOS C (21.9 sec)
*Note: The minor approach delay under the 2009 with Project scenario is lower than the 2009 Baseline
condition because the additional project trips entering the intersection are adding to the non -critical
traffic movements through the intersection which lowers the delay per vehicle for the critical movements.
The results of the level of service analysis indicate that the intersection of SR-99 and 234h Street
SW currently operates at LOS E for the minor street approach and will continue to operate at
LOS E under future 2009 and 2014 baseline and with -project conditions.
The approach LOS grade was also analyzed and reported for the proposed access driveway
intersection. The unsignalized site access driveway will operate at LOS C for the driveway
approach to SR-99 upon buildout of the project in 2009 and also in 2014. The detailed LOS
calculations are shown in the Appendix of this report.
Mitigation Requirements
In accordance with the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 18.82.120, the
development is obligated to pay their fair share of mitigation costs towards the City of Edmonds
transportation improvement projects as required by the City's traffic impact fee guidelines.
The City of Edmonds requires a unit traffic mitigation fee contribution of $0.93 per square foot
of Shopping Center floor area (ITE Code 820) as outlined in Table 4 (Traffic Impact Fees) of the
Edmonds Road Impact Fee Study.
Therefore, with 16,930 square feet of proposed Shopping Center floor area, the Edmonds Retail
Shopping Center development is obligated to contribute a total traffic mitigation fee of
$15,744.90 (16,930 square feet x $0.93 per SF) for City transportation improvement programs.
Table 3 summarizes the traffic mitigation fee required for the proposed development.
C:\Shenn\Northshore T02008 Projects\08TO2 Morris Edmonds Retail\Edmonds Retail Report-060408.doc
Mr."G. Patrick Morris
May 23, 2008
Page 6
Table 3
Traffic Mitigation Summary
City of Edmonds
Unit Cost
Units of Measure
Project Fee
Shopping Center (ITE Code 820)
$0.93 per SF
16,930 SF
$15,744.90
We trust that the trip generation and traffic analysis conducted above for the proposed Edmonds
Shopping Center Development provides you with the information necessary for the City of
Edmonds to complete their review of this development.
This study was prepared by a licensed Professional Engineer in the State of Washington and a
Mem� ber of the Institute of Transportation Engineers. Please contact us if you have any questions
or concerns regarding the infort-nation documented herein.
Sincerely,
NORTHSHORE TRAYYAC CONSULTANTS
4��/
Shern'tnan D. Goong, P.E.
Project Principal
Attachments
I �XPIRES__ 12-04-01__,
C:\Sherm\Northshore T02008 Projects\08TO2 Morr is Edmonds Retail\Edmonds Retail Report 060408.doc
I —
�77�
-E�
00
J Edmonds Retail Traffic Study
00HORC Project Vicinity Map
CN( Ab�
TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS Figure I
ILL.,
aim"
=Wwsv�T Sir
41. a IK AC.N
J
COMO a 00.6 �H5 H �Oc
TR-AFFIC CONSULTANTS
-#EAL q I
)! -11-10
6
0.
AWAS
41AM26
MM SM AWA - SAM 41
M—wimusmMm-
r.0
1hplanw-WIF
AR�Nw�ffdwmftmw
Edmonds Retail Traffic Study
Site Plan
Figure 2
110 35
230th Steet SW
60
Project
C Site
4)
Co 40
234th Street SW
8 7
--I:c
8
T 25
99
Legend
Fx—] Percent Project Trips
J Edmonds Retail Traffic Study
ORZHORC Project Trip Distribution
ILK, ANMM
TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS FiRure 3
t
230th Steet SW
I I IL I (-)
� I t
PTS]
CK O�R., H 5 0 k �C'
TRAFFIC CONSULTANTS
2
7107 ; �/.W
6 (14) --0,
6(9)
234th Street SVY
Legend
XX New Trips
(XX) Passby Trips
Edmonds Retail Traffic Study
New and Passby Project Trips
PM Peak Hour
Figure 4
230th Steet SW 2/2
20
15
to
I 234th Street SW
t
99
Legend
XX Net Total Trips
I
Edmonds Retail Traffic Study
Net Total Project Trips
PM Peak Hour
TR-AFFIC CC7)NSUILTANTS Figure 5
Re: Traffic Impact Study for Proposed
Trip Generation Calculations
NTC Project No.
Edmonds Retail Center
08TO2
Proposed Landuse
Quantity
ITE Land Use Code
Land Use
1.
Shopping Center
16,930 Square
Feet
820
Retail
1. Shopping Center
ITE Land Use Code 820
Land Use Quantity 16,930 Square Feet
Average Daily Traffic
ITE Trip Rate: 42.94 trips per 1000 Square Feet
Inbound 50%
Outbound 50%
Average Daily Traffic 727 trips
Pass -By Reduction 65%
Net Average Daily Traffic 254
PIVI Peak Hour Trips
ITE Trip Rate: 3.75 trips per 1000 Square Feet
Inbound 44%
Outbound 56%
PIVI Peak Hour Trips 63 trips
Inbound 28 trips
Outbound 35 trips
Pass -By Reduction 65%
Net PIVI Peak Hour Trips 22
Inbound 10
Outbound 12
KANorthshore T02008 Projects=T02 Morris Edmonds Retail\[Trip Gen.x1s]Big 5
DAS Monday, April 04, 2005
Shopping Center
(820)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
On a: Weekday,
Peak Hour of Adjacent Street Traffic,
One Hour Between 4 and 6 p.m.
Number of Studies: 407
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 379
Directional Distribution: 48% entering, 52% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
Average Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
-- 3.75 0.68 - 29.27 2.75
L)aza viot ana tquation
1 9,000 1
8,000
7,000
6,000
uJ
0.
5,000
0) 4,000
3.000
2.000
1.000
0
0 1000 2000
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.66 Ln(X) + 3.40
------ Average Rate
R 2 = 0.81
3000
Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1453 Institute of Transportation Engineers
Shopping Center
(820)
Average Vehicle Trip Ends vs: 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
On a: Weekday
Number of Studies: 302
Average 1000 Sq. Feet GLA: 328
Directional Distribution: 50% entering, 50% exiting
Trip Generation per 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
A erage Rate Range of Rates Standard Deviation
42.94 12.50 - 270.89 21.38
ucatcz r-iwt milu r-qui-mon
1 70,000 1
60,OOC
50,000
LU
40.000
30.000
F-
20.000
10,000
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900 1000 1100 1200 1300 1400 1500 1600
X = 1000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
X Actual Data Points - Fitted Curve ------ Average Rate
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) = 0.65 Ln(X) + 5.83 R 2 = 0.78
Trip Generation, 7th Edition 1451 Institute of Transportation Engineers
nata Piat
C0
CL
Figure 5.5 Shopping Center (820)
Average Pass -By Trip Percentage vs: 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leawble Area
On a: Weekday, Rm. Peak Period
Number of Studies: 100
Average 1,000 Sq. Feet GLA: 329,
120
110
100
go
80
70
80
50
40
30
20
10
0
.............. ...... ............. ...... ...... ...... ....... I .......
)< . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... .
X. ...... ...... ...... ...... ............. ................. ......
.........................................
x...... ....... : .................
x
.......... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . .
.......................... ............
X x x
............. ......
-)GK-: ... X .... ...... .........
x : . .
x x x
............. ...... ...... ...... ......
T X��: XX x X.:
X� XK 4
)f : x
�x ........ X ......................................................
x x X*
X Y4 :x
x
............ . ......
X ..........
.x X x
: X X )� . :
x...... ........ �( .............................
0 100 300 400 SIX) 6011 700. aw
X 1,000 Sq. Feet Gross Leasable Area
X Actual Data Points Fitted Curve
Fitted Curve Equation: Ln(T) -0.291 Ln(X) + 6.001
21' f>
9w low 1100 1300
I
THp Generation Handbook Chapter 5 0 ITE 43
Edmonds Retail TIA Existing Year 2008
Opening Year 2009
Analysis Year 2014
OBT02 Growth Rate: 1.0%
Turn Movement Count Data
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Count
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
I Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Intersection
Total
Year
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
36
1,639
18
36
11119
53
is
0
14
7
3
10
Z950
2008
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
0
1,664
0
0
1,208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z872
2008
3
0
4
0
5
0
PHF
HV
PHIF
HV
PHIF
HV
PHIF
HV
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
0.95
2%
0.91
2%
0.81
3%
0.56
0%
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
3
4
Existing (2008)
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
I Thru
I Right
Left
Thru
I Right
Intersection
Total
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
36
1,639
18
36
1,119
53
Is
0
14
3
10
Z950
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
0
1,664
0
0
1,208
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z872
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
.5
0
0
0
0
1 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Opening Year without (2009)
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Intersection
Total
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
36
1,655
18
36
1,130
54
15
0
14
7
3
10
Z980
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
0
1,681
0
0
1,220
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Z901
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
1 0
0
. 0
0
. 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
Net Project Volumes
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Intersection
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Total
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
2
1
1
2
1
1
8
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
11
-7
-11
17
20
is
45
3
0
4
0
0
-J
Opening Year with Project (2009)
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
I Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Intersection
Total
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
36
1,657
is
37
1,131
S6
16
0
14
7
3
11
Z988
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
11
1,674
0
0
1,209
17
20
0
is
0
0
0
Z946
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
's
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Future with Project (2014)
Northbound
Southbound
Eastbound
Westbound
Pro -
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
Left
I Thru
I Right
Left
Thru
Right
Intersection
Total
Share
SR 99 @ 234th Street SW
38
1,742
19
39
1,189
58
17
0
is
7
3
12
3,139
0.949
SR 99 @ Site Driveway
11
1,759
0
0
1,271
17
20
0
is
0
0
0
3,094
0.938
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
####
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
####
L5
0 ,
0
, 0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1 0
1 0
1 0
1 0
####
TTRA FFIC DATA GATHERING
TURNING MOVEMENTS DIAGRAM
4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM
E 2.872
U)
53
1 19
36
234th Street SW
234th Street SW
10
3
7
>
15
29
0
54
14
01000,11,
36 1639 18
HV
PHF
(y)
INTERSECTION
a)
SB
2%
0.91
PEAK HOUR VOLUME
(n
NB
2%
0.95
IN
2,950
W13
IOUT
L
2,8
EB
3%0
INTRS.
2%
HV Heavy Vehicles
PHF Peak Hour Factor
SR-99 @ 234th Street SW
Snohomish County, WA
COUNTED BY: JH/PB DATE OF COUNT Wed. 3/19/08
REDUCED BY: CN TIME OF COUNT: 4:00 - 6:00 PM
REDUCTION DATE: fri. 3/21/08 WEATHER: Sunny
TTRAFFIC DATA GATHERfNG
INTERSECTION TURNING MOVEMENTS REDUCTION SHEET
LOCATION: SR-99 @ 234th Street SW DATE OF COUNT:
Snohomish County, WA TIME OF COUNT:
Wed. 3/19/08 COUNTED BY:
4:00 - 6:00 PM WEATHER:
JH/PB
Sunny
TIME
FROM NORTH ON
FROM SOUTH ON
FROM EAST ON
FROM WEST ON
INTERVAL
SR-99
SR-99
234th Street SW
234th Street SW
INTERVAL
ENDING
TOTALS
Left
Thru
Right
Lft
Thru
Right
�-"H'W'�
Left
Thru
Right
Left
Thru
Right
AT
02:15 PM
0
0
0
:-40:;',
0
0
0
w�zo',OL
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
02:30 PM
0
0
0
'40:11N
0
0
0
0
0
;1
0
0
0
0
02:45 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0",
0
0
0
��.O.
0
0
0
0
03:00 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
03:15 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
03:30 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0,
0
0
0
0
03:45 PM
�t_ M,
0
0
0
0
0
0
lj�rll
0
0
0
-:40 4�
0
0
0
0
04:00 PM
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1:40'
0
0
0
0
04:15 PM
5
247
15
12
350
1
2
0
3
07"��
2
2
2
641
04:30 PM
9
302
15
.-1
5
388
5
W"
1
0
1
1
7
0
5
738
04:45 PM
2
270
12
9
433
3
01:1�..'
0
0
3
3
3
0
3
738
05:00 PM
6
258
16
:Z!54�0
8
375
4
0
10
1
1
4
684
05:15 PM
12
305
15
13
430
1
0
0
1
0
0
3
780
05:30 PM
5
10
270
11
10
418
3
0..'1_?w
1
0
4
0
5
0
4
736
05:45 PM
4 .4�-X
13
279
23
4
377
10
oli-11
3
0
2
0��,:!-z
2
0
6
1 719
06:00 PM
1
265
4
11-,
9
414
4
0,"�'_'-
3
3
3
0
8
0
1
715
PEAK HOUR
J.
TOTALS
53
C!,31'
36
1639
18
�_"'o
7
3
10
15
0
14
INTERSECTION
ALL MOVEMENTS
1208
1693
20
29
2950
HV
1 2%
1 2%
0%
3%
1 2%
P :HOUR
TOR
I 0.91
0.95
0.56
0.81
0.95
HV =Heavy Vehicles
PHF = Peak Hour Factor
4:00 - 6:00 PM PEAK HOUR: 1 5:00 PM TO 6:00 PM —]
REDUCED BY: ' CN DATE OF REDUCTION: 3/21/2008
STATE OF WASHINGTON - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
T R I P S S Y S T E M
ANNUAL TRAFFIC REPORT
STATE
ROUTE
FUNCT TRUCK PERCENTAGES
STATE ROUTE
MILEPOST
LOCATION COUPLET
CLASS SNGL DBL TRIPLE TOTAL
099
026.01
BEFORE JCT HOLDEN ST WYE CONN
1
099
028.54
BEFORE RAMP E MARGINAL WAY
1
099
028.86
BEFORE RAMP SPOKANE ST EB
1
099
029.37
AT ADC LOCATION R101
1 04 01 05
099
030.65
BEFORE RAMP 1ST AVE S C
1
099
031.30
AFTER RAMP SENECA ST C
1
099
031.79
BEFORE RAMP ELLIOT AVE
1
099
032.02
AT ALASKAN WAY VIADUCT
1
099
032.03
AFTER RAMP WESTERN AVE*WESTERN AVE
1
099
034.73
BEFORE RAMP N 38TH ST
099
034.85
AFTER JCT N 38TH ST
099
035.67
AFTER JCT N 50TH ST
1
099
036.45
BEFORE JCT W GREEN LAKE WAY N
1
099
037.46
BEFORE JCT N 85TH ST
1
099
037.46
AFTER JCT N 85TH ST
1
099
038.47
BEFORE JCT N NORTHGATE WAY*105TH ST
1
099
038.47
AFTER JCT N NORTHGATE WAY*105TH ST
1
099
040.47
BEFORE JCT SR 523*N 145TH ST
1
099
040.98
AFTER JCT N 155TH ST WYE CONN
1
099
041.74
AFTER JCT N 170TH ST
1
099
043.24
BEFORE JCT N 200TH ST
1
099
043.24
AFTER JCT N 200TH ST
1
099
043.52
AFTER JCT N 205TH ST WYE CONN
1
099
043.67
AFTER RAMP SR 104
1
099
046.83
BEFORE JCT SR 524 WYE CONN
1
099
046.94
AFTER JCT 60TH AVE W
1
099
048.85
AFTER JCT 168TH ST SW WYE CONN
1
099
049.11
BEFORE JCT 164TH ST SW
1
** COUPLET SKETCH IN BACK OF BOOK
123
AVERAGE DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUME
----------------------------------
2003 2004 2005 2006
UNITS UNITS UNITS UNITS
32000 30000* 31000 31000
57000*
48000*
75000* 75000+
39000 39000 39000* 39000
39000*
79000*
50000*
55000*
71000* 71000 71000
54000* 54000 54000
47000 43000* 44000 44000
40000* 41000 41000
38000 37000* 37000 37000
38000 39000* 40000 40000
35000 36000* 36000 36000
36000 33000* 34000 34000
34000 34000* 34000 34000
37000 39000* 39000 39000
38000 38000* 39000 39000
31000 33000* 33000 33000
31000 34000* 35000 35000
33000 36000* 36000 36000
34000* 34000 34000 .4,4 mc>
33000* 33000 33000
34000* 35000 35000
31000* 32000 32000
33000* 31000 32000 32000
* BASED ON ACTUAL COUNT
+ SOURCE OF TRUCK PERCENTAGES
H:\2008\SGoong Development LOS\Synchro\2008 Exising PM.sy7
1: 234th Street SW & SR-99 Edmonds Retail
--* --* --* \,r *-- t 4/
Movement EBL EBT EBR WBL WBT WBR NBL NBT NBR SBL SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4�
4*
1
++T#
I
++T*
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
15
0
14
7
3
10
36
1639
18
36
1119 53
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.91
0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph)
19
0
17
12
5
18
38
1725
19
40
1230 58
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
2009
3158
439
2317
3178
585
1288
1744
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1338
1338
1811
1811
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
671
1820
506
1367
vCu, unblocked vol
2009
3158
439
2317
3178
585
1288
1744
tC, single (s)
7.6
6.6
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.9
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.6
5.6
6.5
5.5
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
pO queue free %
85
100
97
83
94
96
93
89
cM capacity (veh/h)
127
69
563
74
91
460
534
356
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB3
NB 4
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
SB 4
Volume Total
36
36
38
690
690
364
40
492
492
304
Volume Left
19
12
38
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
Volume Right
17
18
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
58
cSH
203
134
534
1700
1700
1700
356
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.18
0.27
0.07
0.41
0.41
0.21
0.11
0.29
0.29
0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft)
16
25
6
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
26.5
41.2
12.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
E
B
C
Approach Delay (s)
26.5
41.2
0.3
0.5
Approach LOS
D
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay 1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization 42.1% ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min) 15
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. for Northshore Traffic Consultants 2008 Existing Conditions
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc.
H:\2008\SGoong Development LOS\Synchro\2009 Baseline PM-sy7
1: 234th Street SW & SR-99 Edmonds Retail
--*
--*
--*
4e
*-
',-
4\
t
1*
"W
4 4/
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4#
4*
++1�
)
+0
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
15
0
14
7
3
10
36
1655
18
36
1130 54
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.91
0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph)
19
0
17
12
5
18
38
1742
19
40
1242 59
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
2028
3187
444
2338
3208
590
1301
1761
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1351
1351
1827
1827
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
677
1837
510
1380
vCu, unblocked vol
2028
3187
444
2338
3208
590
1301
1761
tC, single (s)
7.6
6.6
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.9
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.6
5.6
6.5
5.5
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
pO queue free %
85
100
97
83
94
96
93
89
cM capacity (veh/h)
125
67
559
72
89
456
528
351
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WI3 1
NB 1
NB 2
N133
N134
SB 1
S13 2
SB 3
S13 4
Volume Total
36
36
38
697
697
367
40
497
497
308
Volume Left
19
12
38
0
0
0
40
0
0
0
Volume Right
17
18
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
59
cSH
199
131
528
1700
1700
1700
351
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.18
0.27
0.07
0.41
0.41
0.22
0.11
0.29
0.29
0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft)
16
26
6
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
27.0
42.3
12.3
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
E
B
C
Approach Delay (s)
27.0
42.3
0.3
0.5
Approach LOS
D
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.1
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.4%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. for Northshore Traffic Consultants 2009 Opening Year without Development
Gibson7raffic Consultants, Inc.
H:\2008\SGoong Development LOS\Synchro\2009 Future w Dev PM.sy7
1: 234th Street SW & SR-99
Edmonds Retail
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4#
40
1
+0
++T*
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
16
0
14
7
3
11
36
1657
18
37
1131 56
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.91
0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph)
20
0
17
12
5
20
38
1744
19
41
1243 62
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
2034
3194
445
2342
3215
591
1304
1763
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1355
1355
1829
1829
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
680
1839
513
1386
vCu, unblocked vol
2034
3194
445
2342
3215
591
1304
1763
tC, single (s)
7.6
6.6
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.9
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.6
5.6
6.5
5.5
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
pO queue free %
84
100
97
83
94
96
93
88
cM capacity (veh/h)
123
66
558
72
89
455
527
350
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB3
NB 4
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
SB4
Volume Total
37
38
38
698
698
368
41
497
497
310
Volume Left
20
12
38
0
0
0
41
0
0
0
Volume Right
17
20
0
0
0
19
0
0
0
62
cSH
194
136
527
1700
1700
1700
350
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.19
0.28
0.07
0.41
0.41
0.22
0.12
0.29
0.29
0.18
Queue Length 95th (ft)
17
26
6
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
27.9
41.4
12.4
0.0
0.0
0.0
16.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
E
B
C
Approach Delay (s)
27.9
41.4
0.3
0.5
Approach LOS
D
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.2
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.4%
ICU
Level of Service
A
I
Analysis Period (min)
15
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. for Northshore Traffic Consultants 2009 Opening Year with Development
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc.
HA2008\SGoong Development LOS\Synchro\2014 Future w Dev PM.sy7
1: 234th Street SW & SR-99
Edmonds Retail
Movement
EBL
EBT
EBR
WBL
WBT
WBR
NBL
NBT
NBR
SBL
SBT SBR
Lane Configurations
4�
4*
1
+0
++To
Sign Control
Stop
Stop
Free
Free
Grade ,
0%
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
17
0
15
7
3
12
38
1742
19
39
1189 19
Peak Hour Factor
0.81
0.81
0.81
0.56
0.56
0.56
0.95
0.95
0.95
0.91
0.91 0.91
Hourly flow rate (vph)
21
0
19
12
5
21
40
1834
20
43
1307 21
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median'type
TWLTL
TWLTL
Median: storage veh)
2
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
VC, conflicting volume
2118
3336
446
2463
3337
621
1327
1854
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1403
1403
1924
1924
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
715
1934
540
1413
vCu, unblocked vol
2118
3336
446
2463
3337
621
1327
1854
tC, single (s)
7.6
6.6
7.0
7.5
6.5
6.9
4.1
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
6.6
5.6
6.5
5.5
tF (s)
3.5
4.0
3.3
3.5
4.0
3.3
2.2
2.2
pO queue free %
81
100
97
80
93
95
92
87
cM capacity (veh/h)
113
54
557
63
80
435
516
323
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
WB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
NB 4
SB 1
SB 2
SB 3
SB 4
Volume Total
40
39
40
733
733
387
43
523
523
282
Volume Left
21
12
40
0
0
0
43
0
0
0
Volume Right
19
21
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
21
cSH 1
180
124
516
1700
1700
1700
323
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.22
0.32
0.08
0.43
0.43
0.23
0.13
0.31
0.31
0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)
20
31
6
0
0
0
11
0
0
0
Controt Delay (s)
30.6
46.8
12.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
17.9
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
D
E
B
C
Approach Delay (s)
30.6
46.8
0.3
0.6
Approach LOS
D
E
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
1.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
44.1%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysi I s Period (min)
15
Gibson,
Traffic Consultants, Inc. for Northshore Traffic Consultants 2014 Future with Development
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc.
H:\2008\SGoong Development LOS\Synchro\2009 Future w Dev PM.sy7
2: Site Access & SR-99
Edmonds Retail
4%
t
4
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
y
+++
tO
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
20
15
11
1674
1209
17
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
22
16
12
1820
1314
18
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median type
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
1954
447
1333
vC1, stpge 1 conf vol
1323
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
630
vCu, unblocked vol
1954
447
1333
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s) �
3.5
3.3
2.2
pO que6e free %
89
97
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
194
559
514
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
NB 1
NB 2
N133
N134
S13 1
SB 2
SB 3
Volume Total
38
12
607
607
607
526
526
281
Volume Left
22
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
Volume Right
16
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
cSH
269
514
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700
Volume to Capacity
0.14
0.02
0.36
0.36
0.36
0.31
0.31
0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)
12
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
Control Delay (s)
20.6
12.2
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
Lane LOS
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
20.6
0.1
0.0
Approach LOS
C
I
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
42.3%
ICU Level of Service
A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. for Northshore Traffic Consultants 2009 Opening Year with Development
Gibson'Traffic Consultants, Inc.
H:\2008\SGoong Development LOS\Synchro\2014 Future w Dev PM.sy7
2: Site Access & SR-99 Edmonds Retail
--* N 4\
Movement
EBL
EBR
NBL
NBT
SBT
SBR
Lane Configurations
Y
)
ttt
++T*
Sign Control
Stop
Free
Free
Grade
0%
0%
0%
Volume (veh/h)
20
15
11
1759
1271
17
Peak Hour Factor
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
0.92
Hourly flow rate (vph)
22
16
12
1912
1382
18
Pedestrians
Lane Width (ft)
Walking Speed (ft/s)
Percent Blockage
Right turn flare (veh)
Median, type
TWLTL
Median storage veh)
2
Upstream signal (ft)
pX, platoon unblocked
vC, conflicting volume
2052
470
1400
vC1, stage 1 conf vol
1391
vC2, stage 2 conf vol
661
vCu, unblocked vol
2052
470
1400
tC, single (s)
6.8
6.9
4.1
tC, 2 stage (s)
5.8
tF (s)
3.5
3.3
2.2
pO queue free %
88
97
98
cM capacity (veh/h)
179
540
484
Direction, Lane #
EB 1
NB 1
NB 2
NB 3
N134
SB 1
SB 2 SB 3
Volume Total
38
12
637
637
637
553
553 295
Volume Left
22
12
0
0
0
0
0 0
Volume Right
16
0
0
0
0
0
0 18
cSH
251
484
1700
1700
1700
1700
1700 1700
Volume to Capacity
0.15
0.02
0.37
0.37
0.37
0.33
0.33 0.17
Queue Length 95th (ft)
13
2
0
0
0
0
0 0
Control Delay (s)
21.9
12.6
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0
0.0 0.0
Lane LOS
C
B
Approach Delay (s)
21.9
0.1
0.0
Approach LOS
C
Intersection Summary
Average Delay
0.3
Intersection Capacity Utilization
44.0%
ICU Level of Service A
Analysis Period (min)
15
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc. for Northshore Traffic Consultants 2014 Future with Development
Gibson Traffic Consultants, Inc.
I
Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study
TABLE 4
IMPACT FEE RATES
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
Trip
ITE rrE Land Use
Trip
% New
Length
Net New Trips per
Impact Fee Per Unit @ $
Code Category
Rate'
Trips'
Factor4l
Unit of Measure
763.66 per Trip
110 Light Industrial
0.98
100%
1.59
1 1.56 1,000 sq ft
1.19 per square foot
140 Manufacturing
0.74
100%
1.59
1.18 1,000 sq ft
0.90 per square foot
151 Mini -warehouse
0.26
100%
1.59
0.41 1,000 sq ft
0.32 per square foot
210 Single family
1.01
100%
1.09
1.10 dwelling
840.72 per dwelling unit
House
220 Apartment
0.62
100%
1.15
0.71 dwelling
544.49 per dwelling unit
230 Condominium
0.54
100%
1.15
1 0.62 dwelling
474.24 per dwelling unit
240 Mobile Home
0.56
100%
1.09
0.61 dwelling
466.14 per dwelling unit
310 Hotel
0.61
100%
1.25
0.76 room
1
582.29 per room
320 Motel
0.47
100%
1.25
0.59 room
448.65 per room
420 Marina
0.19
100%
0.97
0.18 berth
140.74 per boat berth
430 Golf course
0.30
100%
1.00
0.30 acre
229.10 per acre
444 Movie Theater
3.80
100%
0.72
2.74 1,000 sq ft
1.36 per square foot
492 Racquet club
1.83
100%
0.97
1.78 1,000 sq ft
3.58 per square foot
530 High School
1.02
100%
0.62
0.63 1,000 sq ft
0.48 per square foot
560 Church
0.66
100%
1.1S
1 0.76 1,000 sq ft
0.58 per square foot
610 Hospital
0.92
100%
1.56
1.44 1,000 sq ft
1. 10 per square foot
620 Nursing home
0.20
100%
0.87
1
0.17 bed
132.88 per bed
710 General Office
1.49
100%
1.59
2.37 1,000 sq ft
1.81 per square foot
720 Medical office
3.66
100%
1.50
5.49 1,000 sq ft
4.19 per square foot
-820 Shopping Center
3.74
81%
0.40
j 1,000 sq ft
0.93 per square foot -z
832 Restaurant: sit-
10.86
56%
11.96
,zLl
6.45 1,000 sq ft
4.92 per square foot
down
. I
833 Fast food, no
26.15
52%
0.62
B.-,j 1,000 sq ft
6.44 per square foot
drive -up
834 Fast food, w/
33.48
51%
0.62
1O.S9 1,000 sq ft
8.08 per square foot
drive -up
844 Gas station
14.56
60%
0.53
4.63 pump
3,535.82 per yfp
845 Gas station
13.38
47%
0.53
3.33 pump
2,545.26 per vfp'
w/convenience
850 Supermarket
11-51
55%
0.65
4.11 1,000 sq ft
3.14 per square foot
851 Convenience
53.73.
39%
0.40
8.38 1,000 sq ft
6.40 per square foot
market-24 hr
912 Drive-in Bank 1
54.771
51%1
0.47 1
13.13 1,000 sq ft 1
10.03 per square fooi-i
' ITE Trip Generation (6th Edition): 4-6 PM Peak Hour Trip Ends
3 Excludes pass -by trips: see OTrIp Generation Handbook: An ITE Proposed Recommended
Practice' (1988)
4 Ratio to average trip length.
5 vfp: vehicle fueling position
Henderson,
Young &
Company
City of Edmonds, Washington
April 15, 2003
Page 18
CITY OF EDMONDS
TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS
WORK SHEET
Name of Proposed Project:
Owner/Applicant:
M e=— 0, , A A-P---T (P--�
Name
Street/Mailing Address
0 -2-0
city State zip
Telephone: ( —
Applicant Contact Person:
Mr.,,- ,
Name
Street/Mailing Address
city
Telephone:
Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis:
State zip
K�,o--rK&�,oa-e--Toe� 0
FirrnNwne Contact Name Telephone
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Street address (iftnown):
b. Location: V\1 9 1)-- Ac-P O—P,-rj� 0 F-- A-e,,S C>
L -T, o
C7
5RCE E(Cs, LA- A-,\.)-r> 2-- --rKAFEC- S-rIA (��Y (A itach a vicinity map and site plan.)
c. Specify existing land use: V,4e-A-Nx-r
d. Specify proposed type and size of development
4S.J-Lf)(> P'L t,.� < CE-fy�� Pe-T�(L-
1( 1 �, I ot'?. 0 -5 6L . *==�- ��
e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? -,,> 0 C 51,1
f. Define proposed access locations: 0N-G7 C��P-tvj -ro ��e-ctq
g. Define' osed sight distance at site egress locations:
prop
-QW-WC3�AL-1 (5Z -T&e- -13�0-cw PIS
C, LL (,D S—ro Fr r-r-�LA-10-t-IrN
Page I F:T
2. TRIP GENERATION
a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table: r.1
Land Use Daily (ADT) Z— PM Peak -Hour Trips
zZ IN
b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour Trips
IN OUT
-7
c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour Trips
IN OUT
ko
d. State asswnptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted orpassby trips:
kA-t-�,>a,ocV—, CkAf>, 4 -
;T I Kzt, 4,2, Trcc,,Lj,� S-,<37, _S KONN f,� C,��
F CT-Ct;;�N Qu,�Ulzi- , L-A f -T-) —C), Z-q k L--f-, (Y_,� -.t- S. 00 1 -
Page 2
3. TRIP DISTRI19UTION
Prepare and attach a graphic showing project trip distribution percentages and assignments. SEZ�-
I -�!�
4. 91TE ACCESS ROADWAY/DRIVEWAYS AND SAFETY
a. Have sight distance requirements at egress location been met per AASHTO requirements?
1 -700 -TJ --Clor,
b. Intersection Level of Service Analysis ;A -ND.
• Existing Conditions
LOS - Delays 14-( - Z 5�.
• Year of Opening
LOS 1E Delays 4(-4- 5��C
• Five Years Beyond Change of Land Use
LOS Delays -4(,o 5e-c—
(Intersections to be evaluated shall be determined by the City of Edmonds Traffic Engineer.)
c. Describe channelization warrants:
p
(Attach stripingplan.)
d. Vehicle Storage/Queuing Analysis (calculate 50% and 95 % queuing lengths):
50% 95%
* Existing Conditions - r'� / t---
7— t5-' FT- (F—B)
Year of Opening wlt� 2�6 F-F
Five Years Beyond
Change of Land Use ET
e. If appropriate, state stop sign and signal warrants:
f Summarize local accident history:
N 0--r AAJ-111A L-A�� LG�- X-7r -r-t w-t rg- df--
Page 3
5. TRAFFIC VOLUMES
a. Describe existing ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, on street adjacent to and
directly impacted by the project.
154a I - 7Z.Ib�-770 N(>-T- "Z 0(00 9tv-, P(4-
2-10 pro--F L -Z- C) P v�, P K,
b. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, the year the project is
fully open (with and without project traffic).
cv:4t 2-at P-v'T Prv" PK_
A- t>—r
c. Describe the estimated ADT and peak -hour counts, including turning movements, five years after the
project has been ftilly open (with and *ithout project traffic).
--'1Z_ �5� ic? ALT - rbe
S-r 5VJ A-D-T PV-
d. State annual background traffic growth factor and source:
A-Nr,� LL4,(__C=f?-0V� E]6-C--CCb4L6r-- �0114t�
6. LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS
Summarize Level of Service Analysis below and attach supporting LOS analysis documentation. Provide
the following documentation for each arterial street or arterial intersection impacted by ten or more peak -
hour trips. Other C*ty-planned developments must also be factored into the LOS calculations.
Existine LOS: 5-t-'51,J A-"C>
Existing Condition: L_0_'- E_ (4t.2- F-ep-
ct-r-1--t S-r. �a
Year of Openine LOS:
With Project: Q&C:) 14
Without Project: er_�
Page 4
Five Years After Ovenine LOS:
With Project: L-b S 44o - C-)
Without Project:
A-G�00 ss-e-.'
Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications: r-ZbN c;;,7- N G�D -
7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact
fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified
in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise pro*vided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130.
PtFrz, C—(—CV "
us,,ci7- 1-nP7 c:oix7-�,
SAENGR\Darre1ACity ProjecukTIA Guide1inez\Traf1nq)Ana1yWork 9-04.cbe Page 5
h11
4A e,'§ '2;
STORMWATER SITE PLAN
For
A 2 at Edmonds Commercial
in
Edmonds, WA.
IECO Project: 07-0443
J
Tax ID# 00576700002002
November 19,2007
Revised on: March 28, 2008
6�
PREPARED FOR:
A-Z @ Edmonds LLC.
23 723 112" PL W
Shoreline, WA 98020
(206)542-4411
PREPARED BY:
Andrew L. Dawson
REVIEWED BY:
Brian R. Kalab, P.E.
L LXHIHES 1 1/30/2008
514
C'"ITY COPY
RESUB
jUN 23 2008
3630 Colby Avenue * Everett, WA 98201 # Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 * Email: info@insightengineering.net
TABLEofCONTENTS
I. PROJECT OVERVIEW
'11. PLOT PLAN
Ill. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
IV. OFF -SITE ANALYSIS
i
V. ANALYSIS AND DESIGN
VI. SPECIAL REPORTS AND STUDIES
VII. BASIN AND COMMUNITY PLANNING AREAS
VIII. OTHER PERMITS
IX. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTOL PLAN
X. BOND QUANTITIES WORKSHEET/DETENTION SUMMARY:
SHEET/DECLARATION OF COVENANT
XI. MANTENANCE AND OPERATIONS MANUAL
PROJECT OVERVIEW
The . proposed project A-2 at Edmonds Commercial is located at 234th St. SW & HWY. 99 in the
city I of Edmonds, Washington. More generally, the site is located in Section 3 1, Township 27
North, and Range 4 East of the Willamette Meridian in Snohomish County, Washington. Please
I
refer to the Vicinity Map attached later in this section for more details.
The project contains approximately 1.37 acres. There are no critical areas located within the
project site. The site is currently undeveloped and exists as cleared land. The proposal is to
construct 3 new commercial buildings, the required parking spaces, and associated utilities.
Access to the site will be from 234 1h ST. SW and HWY. 99. The proposal also includes frontage
improvements along 234 th St. SW.
The property slopes to the east towards HWY. 99. Please refer to the downstream analysis map
for more details. Per SCC survey of Snohomish County, the project site contains Alderwood
soils that have a hydrologic classification of Type "C". Please refer to the soils map and
descri I ptions attached later in this report for more details.
This report will follow the Stormwater Site Plan requirements, per Page 1-3-13 of the 1992
Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, Washington State Department of
Ecolo y (DOE). The project will provide an on -site Stormwater Detention/Water Quality facility
9
using the DOE recommendations.
DOE Minimum Requirements Summary
MR = Minimum Requirement
MR# 1 Erosion and sediment Control: See Section IX
MR#2 Preservation of Natural Drainage Systems: The proposed detention facilitates will
discharge to the existing storm system along HWY. 99 to follow its natural drainage path.
MR43 — Source Control of Pollution: Source control BMP's will be included in the
SWWPP for construction of the site. Please refer to the SWPPP for more details.
MR#4 — Runoff Treatment BMP's: A wet vault has been proposed for water quality conforming
to the DOE Manual. Please see Section V, 'Water Quality Analysis' for more details.
MR#15 — Stream Bank Erosion Control: The proposed Detention/Water Quality vault has been
desig : hed to meet the DOE release rate requirements. Please see Section V for more details.
MR#6 — Wetlands: There are no wetlands or critical areas located within the project site.
MR#7 — Water Quality Sensitive Areas: Does not apply.
MR#8 — Off -site Analysis and Mitigation: Please see Section IV for off -site analysis. The
proposed detention vault will store water that is currently flowing in an unrestrained manner and
will m eter a restricted flow into the downstream channel at smaller flow rates, which
theoretically existed in the pre -historical condition of dense woodland. Potential violations of
Water jQuality Standards are mitigated by the use of a wet vault. Potential im acts due to spills
p
and discharges of pollutants will be mitigated with appropriate spill control guidelines and good
housekeeping of the developed site.
MR49'_ Basin Planning: To date, no basin plans have been prepared for this site that would
require�more stringent controls.
MR# 10 — Operation and Maintenance: See Section XI.
MR# I I Financial Liability: This will be determined on permit phases.
VICINITY MAP
PHOTO TAKEN FROM THE 2002 THOMAS BROTHERS'GUIDE CD-ROM
n44 Q,-
s,
t n fg
3630 Colby Ave Everett, WA 98201
425-303-9363, 425-303-9362 f.
Info@lnsightengineering.net
FIGURE I - VICINITY MAP
A-2 at Edmonds
Edmonds, WA 98026
SCALE:
V= 1,222' DATE: 11/19/07 1 JOB il: 07-0443
BY: KIH FILE NAME:
I 07-0443/doc/VICIMTYMAP
PLOT PLAN
Refer to the construction plans.
III. PRELIMINARY CONDITIONS SUMMARY
Per Soils Survey, the majority of the project site contains Alderwood Urban Land Complex;
slopes vary from 0 to 9 — percent. Please, refer to the Soils Map within this report for more
details.
The proposed storm drainage system shall conform to the requirements for runoff control and
water quality per the 1992 Stormwater Management Manual for the Puget Sound Basin, prepared
by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE).
Per City of Edmonds, the precipitation is as follows:
2 yr/24-hr = 1.5 inches
10 yr/24-hr = 2.0 inches
100 yr/24-hr= 3.0 inches
IV. OFFSITE ANALYSIS
A site reconnaissance was performed by Andrew L. Dawson of Insight Engineering Company on
November 8, 2007, to verify the downstream flow path and observe any drainage problems
downstream of the site.
The 'weather was clear and sunny.
The s i ite is currently undeveloped and exists as- a cleared land. No visible on -site drainage
problems were observed at the time of field investigations.
Upstream Analysis
Based on the site reconnaissance and the topographic survey of the area, there ar I e upstream
drainage flowing into the site from the north as well as from the west. These are closed
conveyance systems and we are proposing to bypass the flows to the downstream course.
Downstream Analysis
Please refer to the Downstream Analysis Map on the next pages for a visual description of the
downstream flow.
i
The drainage from the property sheet flows towards the east for approximately 200 ft into the
existing storm -system on HWY. 99. From there, the runoff enters into the existing Type -I catch
basins ah,d flows north along HWY. 99 via 12 " pipe for over !/4mile. The visual downstream was
concluded at this point. There does not appear to be any restrictions or erosion problems within
%4mile of the site.
STORMWATER MANAGEMENT MANUAL FOR THE pUGET SOUND BASIN
IQ Tne Hydniogic 'IkQ
B SP—WAY AM
Niw"Oy B %whWdak B
Nbokwck C suhavw B
CrD sahm C
Osafty C subfin B
Olew ND su� C
Okow= C sw6wws ND
OIYM&' a Tac� D
on" D TSOWIM ND
OrWe D Tcdwbk ND
orting ND Tcnipo C
020 C Tmcb
ovall C TOW D
Phoft C TOWM=d ND
Pb—" C Twill= C
.". M ND TWO& ND
Pgcbw,k C D
P -,16 � Takey ND
Pbobbo C Vibm Vwi"
C Whom R
C VCdat C
Pas" D WaPND ND
pbyau-p a wanks a I
Quem ND V)bWbcy ND
Quaceft ND WMMIM R --,%
RaSaw 8 VrWA= A
Rainier C WCO&WWWC
RIN& a YCIM
Reed ND C
Zynbw
Hydrologic SoLl Group Classifications
(Low runoff potential). Sails having high infiltration rates, even when
thoroughly wetted, and consisting chiefly of deep, well-t�cess-ively drained
sands Or gravels. These soils have a high rate Of water transmission.
13-' (Moderately low rum '
when thoroughly wette f potent'aj Soils having moderate infiltration rates
d, and ame ing chiefly of moderately fine to moderately
c0aX90 textures. These soils have a moderate rate of w&ter transmins-
C. (Moderately high runoff potential). Lon.
SOL16 having slow infiltration rates when
thoroughly wetted' and consisting chiefly Of soils with a layer that impedes
downward movement Of water, or soils with moderately f ine to fine textures.
D. These soils*have a slow rate of water transmission.
(High runoff potential)' Soils having very Blow infiltration rates. when
thoroughly wetted and consisting chiefly Of clay soils with a high swelling
Onti&l, soils with a permanent high water table, soils with a hnrd 2
pan or
lay layer at or near the surface, and shallow soils over nearly impervious
material, These soils have a very Blow rate of water transmission.
ND Data not currently avaijole for this goil type.
Second ion, June 1986, NIMat -A-.1. Revisions made from
SCS, Soil Interpretation Record, Form IS, September 1988 and various county soj'
surveys.
III-1-10 FEBRUARY, 1992
PM
'57
Table ZXr-1.3 SM western
(Publinbed by sag ff curve Rumbezz
Ln 1982) Runoff curve for ftlectW agricultural,
land use suburban and urban '
f0c 2%nm 1A rainfall Stributlan, 24-hmm
dL - StOM dUratIO31-
T.x a= MBSCRXPTIM
NUMBnS By
OLOGXC SOZL GRWP
;:77
Lawnd (1):
8 C D
xtaLn Opm areas:
1016 growing brush r. gressLulds
86; 91 94 95
Meadow or pasture.
74 82 ag
Wood or fOV08t Land:
Undisturbed
65 78 as 89
Wbod or forest
42 64 76 81
YCUU9 Becond growth or br-.h
SS 72 0"%
Ozcbardl
86
with cover C—rov
Cpen zPaces, ImInS. parks,
LwAffcaping- 902f ccmLxves, cemeteries,
gal 88 -9-2 94
Good
conditiem:
grass cover on 2:75% of t1u.
axle&
68 so
FAIr conditim.-
-
go
gra cover On SO-7S% of
the area
77 as 90 92
G"'ve, zoacft a Parking 10ta-z
Di ft- parkina lots-.
76 as 89 91
MqxWv'Ou8 surfaces,
72 82 87 -8-9
pave=ent,
Water bodies:
XOOfJ3 ate.
11-kes.,
98 98 9i 98
Single family ldentlalj2)z
,-I-w&janft Pomis etc.
100 100 IGO ]LOCO
DR6111=9 OhLt/arcum Acre
1-0 DVIGA
is
COM
1-5 VU/GA
2.0 DU/Ga
20
nunber
shall be selected for
2. 5 mule&
25
30
VIOUS & "Werviolls
Portlon- of the site
3-0 MU/Ga
3.5 zV/GA
34
or basin
4. 0 j)V/GA
38
42
4-5 13u/CA
46
5.0 DV/GA
48
5.S to/GA
so
6.0 VVIGA
52
6.5 DU/G&
S4
7.0 ng/Gh
S6
PW 9, condos, apartments,
cO=22=dAa busineems
cue
inthurtrial axnas
Must be
c0=0uted
(1). F'or &-0=9 d8tAiled description of latrad
(2) MxJlne=jmg Handbook, Sew. 4, use curve r=&e= refer
and driveway runcff is ar:�=Icvyr Chapter 9, AugwM 1972.
(3) '7he remaining Perw,=W areas lawn) are into-street/sto= system.
4:1002ditIon for 1the" cj2jC.M 231,12C11.4e c widered to be.Ln good
- -jm-
I
)Event Summary —i MCI I.V, Auu
FE—vent
[Peak Q WS) [Peak T (hrs)) [Hy—d pe
Vol (acfftt) [Area (ac) J�Wethod liainty
F6 mo—nthF—o .2iog F —800 I
r '0-0729 F, .37-0 o FsB —UH `-TYPEJA
0.
-' 8� 1.3700 FSBUH k'TYPEIA
--�-3753
2 year
F
.5945 —
F1 0 yearF o 8—.00F 0.2-034 —BUW,
F—T -- --.Fl.37oo F�sFTYPEIA
1 00 year —1 - —6691 8.00
0.3466
- Wo .3700
Record Id FsBUH ['IT i1A
-;ignthod
FD
SBUH FR�infall type
FHyd Intv
r 10-00 min Ireaking Factor
F
traction Coeff
Pervious Area (AMC 2) --- — ---------
r 0.27 ac —FDCIA
FPervious CN
Fp�ry i �ou s T 86-00 JDC CN
6.00 min [DC TC
Pervious CN Cale
7",
>
4-9
Description
Open spaces, lawns,park F—sub�—rea
w, s (>75% grass)
IF Pervious C 0.27 ac
Omposited CN (AMC 2)
Pervious TC Cale
F—TY—Pe Description
-F 'Length —Slope
FFixe—d* F C—oeff
Pervious TC
TYPEIA
�,4�O
0.2
A ac
98.00
6:00 min
Sub —cp
7 0 —0
86.00
TT
min
6.00 min
Direc4 COnni�ccted CN Cale
Description
F SubArea F —Subcn
Impe'r"Vious surfaces (pavements, roofs, -e�c—)---- F—TI 6—a—c-7 980-0
DQ CoMpoSited CN (AMC 2)
Directly Connected TC Cale
FType Description Length
Slope IF —coefP—F —misc F —TT
6.00 min
Directl
(;v1wVWq TQ
0
11
I
AITY PLANNING AREAS
is not located within a particular basin plan and/or community planning
ire stricter storm drainage requirements.
I
VIII. OTHER PERMITS
The following permits are anticipated:
L N.P.D.E.S. from DOE.
12. Right -of -Way from the City of Edmonds and possibly Snohomish County.
IX EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL PLAN
The general strategy for protection of the downstream properties is:
I - Cover disturbed areas by mulching, seeding, and/or plastic covering.
2. Route off -site cl . ean r . unoff away from the disturbed areas and discharge into natural
vegetation.
3. Where feasible install a sediment pond for sediment trapping.
TESC is to be accomplished utilizing the following B.M.P.'s:
1. Conformance to DOE and City of Edmonds.
2. Stabilized Construction Entrance
A stabilized construction entrance is located at the existing entrances along HWY. 99 and
-234' St. SW.
3. Filter Fabric Fence
Filter fabric fencing is to be placed along the do w*nstream clearing limit perimeters to
protect adjacent properties. Fence lengths locations are shown on the TESC plans, along
with necessary detai I Is and notes in conformance with the DOE requirements.
4. Catch Basin Inlet Protection
On -site CBs are to receive gravel and wire mesh protection. Any off -site existing CBs
affected by sediment from construction would have a minimum'filter fabric covering. The
contractor shall be instructed that further measures for existing CBs may be necessary if
conditions warrant.
5. Sediment Pond
A sediment pond is proposed for this project.
6., Cover Measures
Notes for temporary cover measures are in compliance with the City of Edmonds standards
are on the construction plans. Hydroseeding and mulch are to be used to cover disturbed
areas. Stockpiles are to be plastic covered.
TESC Pond sizing calculations
The total contributing area to the proposed sediment pond is approximately 1.37 acres.
Per 1992 DOE section 11-5.8.7, the sediment pond is sized for the developed I 0-year / 24-hour
design storm.
I Discharge rate
Q I Oyr/24fir 0. 5 3 cfs
Surface Area (SA)
S 'A = I.2XQIOyr/24hr/Vsed
SA = 1.2 X 0.53 / 0.00096
Where Vsed is the settling velocity.
= 663 Sqft
2. Sizing the De -watering Mechanism:.
Principal Spillway (Riser pipe)
The diameter shall be the minimum necessary to pass the pre -developed I 0-yr/24-hr
�sign storm. Use Figure 111.2.38 Riser inflow curves (DOE) to determine this diameter
I foot)
Oyr�24hr predev) = 0.09 cfs
�igure 111.2.38 of the DOE manual, the minimum riser diameter is 12 inches to
ey this flow rate.
gency Overflow Spillway
meirgency overflow spillway shall convey the 100yr/24hr developed design storm.
,yr/24hr = 0.85 cfs
)A
Q I 00Yd/24hr 2.4 (H 2
)A
3.21 (H 3/2
0.85 -2.4(0.5)A 2
3.21 (0.5)A 3/2
0.15 feet. Use the minimum length of 6.0 feet.
,mum &amexa) Pea kve i0xI0NN*In% pnpa�xcjyv.
J2
JO TgAJ/2
Ao Orifice area in square feet
As Pond surface area in square feet
H Head above the Orifice (height of riser in pipe)
T De -watering Time (T = 24 hours)
g Acceleration due to gravity
663 (2 x 3.5)A 1/2
10.6 x 3600 (24) (32.2)A 1/2
Ao 0.00034 Sqft
Convert Ao to Diameter (D) in inches
D = 24 x (Ao / 3.14)A 1/2
D = 0.25 inches. (Use I" minimum) Per the DOE design standards;
the perforated pipe shall be a minimum of two inches larger than the Orifice sizes.
Use 3-inch diameter for the perforated pipe.
,�diment pond shall be a minimum of 5-ft deep, which includes I -ft towards free
d, 2-ft towards settling depth and I -ft towards sediment storage. Refer to the
Iruction plans for more detail.
A OV CONEN&NA
iy be required and would be submitted at the time of construction
0
No. 4 - Control Structure/Flow Restrictor
Wi n1tenaiwe- Q
...efeot
Componi rit
Wher tert�jice.ls N66ded
[��4ill �
Results Exo cted
When Miih' nance
General Trash and Debris
(includes Sediment)
Material exceeds 25% of sump depth or I
foot below orifice plate.
Control structure
orifice Is not blocked.
All trash and debris
removed.
Structural Damage
Structure Is not securely attached to
Structure securely
manhole wall.
attached to wall and
outlet pipe.
Structure is not in upright position (allow up
to 10% from plumb).
Structure In corre-
ct
position.
Connections to outlet pipe are not watertight
and show signs of rust.
Connections to outlet
pipe are water tight;
structure repaired or
replaced and works
as designed.
Any holes --other than designed holes —in the
structure.
Structure has no
holes other than
Cleano ! ut Gate Damaged or Missing
Cleanout gate Is not watertight or is missing.
designed holes.
Gate is watertight
and works as
designed.
Gate cannot be moved up and down by one
Gate moves up and
maintenance person.
down easily and is
watertight.
Chain/rod leading to gate Is missing or
damaged.
Chain is In place and
works as designed.
Gate is rusted over 50%. of its surface area.
Gate is repaired or
replaced to meet
design. standards.
Plate Damaged or Missing
control device is not working properly due to
Plate Is in place and
missing, out of place, or bent 0 e plate.
rific plate.
works as desigr
Obstructions
Any trash, debris, sediment, or vegetation.
Plate is free of ail
blocking the plate.
obstructions and
works as designed.
Pipe Obstructions
Any trash or debris blocking (or having . the
Pipe is free of all
potential of blocking) the overflow pipe.
obstructions and
works as designed.
See " osed
D4tention Systems"
See *Closed Detention Systems" (No. 3).
See "Closed
(No. 3).
Detention Systems"
(No. 3).
See "Catch Basins"
(No. 5). 1
See "Catch Basins" (No. 5).
I
See "Catch Basins"
—
(No. 5).
Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs
4-35
No. 5 — Catch Basins
Maintenance [Wect
Cdmponent
OQF*04is When Maintenance W Need d EX
e suits . PectedWhen
Maintenance is..
General Trash &
Trash or debris which Is located Immediately
P rfo 6d.
Debris
in front of the catch basin opening or is
blocking inletting capacity of the basin -by
No Trash or debris located
Immediately in front of
More than 10%.
catch basin or on grate
opening.
Trash or debris (in the basin) that exceeds 60 No trash or debris in the
percent of the sump depth as measured from
the bottom of basin to Invert of the lowest
catch basin.
lelpe into or out of the basin but In no case
ss than a minimum Of six inches clearance
from the debris surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe.
Trash or debris In any inlet or outlet pipe
blocking more than 1/3 of its height. -
Inlet and outlet pipes free
of trash or debris.
Dead animals or vegetation that could
generate odors that could cause co
2
No dead animals or
plaints
or dangerous gases (e.g., methaneT
vegetation p:resent within
the catch Lbasin.
Sediment
Sediment (in the basin) that exceeds 60
percent of the sump depth as measured from
No sediment in the catch
the bottom of basin to Invert of the lowest
basin
pipe into or out of the basin, but in no case
less than a minimum of 6 inches clearance
from the sediment surface to the invert of the
lowest pipe.
Structure
Damage to
Top slab has holes larger than 2 square
inches or cracks wider than 1/4 inch
Top slab Is free of holes
Frame and/or
and cracks.
Top Slab
(intent is to make sure no material is running
-
Into basin).
Frame not sitting flush on top slab, i.e.,
separation of more than 3/4 inch of the frame
Frame is sifting flush on
from the top slab. Frame not securely
the riser rings or top slab
and firmly attached.
attached
Fractures or
Cracksin
Maintenance person judges that strudture Is
unsound.
re
Basin placed or . repaired
Basin Walls/
to design standards.
Bottom
Grout fillat has separated or cracked wider
than 112 Inch and longer than I foot at the
Pipe is regrouted and
joint of any Inlettoutlet pipe or any evidence of
secure at basin wall.
soil particles entering catch basin through
cracks.
Settlement/
Misalignment
If failure of basin has created a safety,
I function, or design problem.
Basin replaced or repaired
to design standards.
Vegetation
Vegetation growing across and blocking more
than 10% of the basin
No vegetation blocking
opening.
opening to basin.
Vegetation growing In inlettoutlet pipe joints
that is more than six Inches tall and less than
No vegetation or ro Ot
six inches apart.
growth present.
VolumeV—Runoff reatmentBws August 2001
No. 5 Catch Basins
ent
C C r= Is Needed
Res Ults AXPected When
114intpnai.i.ce is
performed'
7
Contamination
and Pollution
jNot
Se
See "Detention Ponds" (No. 1).
No Pollution present.
Catch Basin
Cover
Cover Not in
Place
01
Cover is missing or only partially in place.
Any open catch basin requires
Catch basin cover is
maintenance.
closed
Locking
Me anis
Mechanism
Mechanism cannot be opened by one
maj
maintenance personwith proper tools. Bolts
Mechanism opens with
ot Wor
Workimng
!to
into frame have less than 1/2 inch of thread.
proper tools.
Cover Difficult
to Remove
One maintenance person cannot remove lid
after applying norm'al lifting pressure.
Cover can be removed I by
one maintenance person.
(Intent is keep cover from sealing off access
to maintenance.)
Ladder�
Ladd . er Rungs
Unsafe
Ladder Is unsafe due to missing rungs, not
securely attached to basin wall,
Ladder meets design
misalignment, rust, cracks, or sharp edges.
standards and allows
maintenance person safe
Metal Grates
(If Applicable)
Grate opening
Unsafe I
Grate with opening wider than 7/8 inch.
access.
Grate opening meets
design standards.
Trash and
Debris
Trash and debris that Is blocking more than
20% of grate surface inletting
Grate free of trash and
capacity.
debris.
Damaged or
Missing. I
Grate missing or broken member(s) of the
grate.
Grate is In place and
meets design standards.
- Debris Barriers (e.g., Tr ash Racks)
mance Defect
�nents
Concittlon When Maintenance I's
Needed
Results Expected When
Maintenance is Performed
Tiash and
Debris
k8ars
Trash or debris that Is plugging more
than 20% of the openings In the barrier.
Barrier cleared to design flow
capacity.
Damaged/
Missing
Bars are bent out of shape more than 3
inches.
5
Bars in place with no bends more
inch.
than 3/4
I a / c
Inlet/Outlet
Pipe
Bars are missing or entire barrier
missing.
Bars are loose and rust is causing 50%
deterioration to any part of barrier.
Debris barrier missing or not attached to
pipe
Bars in place according to design.
Barrier replaced or repaired to
design standards.
Barrier firmly attached to pipe
Volume V —Runoff Treatment BAP—s
4-37
No. 12 — Wetvaults
Wintehance Mfect
comporient
General Trash/Debris
Accumulation
Sediment
Accumulation in
Vault
Damaged Pipes
Ac6ass Cover
Damaged/Not
Working
Ventilation
Vault Structure
Damage -
Includes Cracks
in Walls Bottom,
Damage to Frame
and/or Top Slab
Baffles
Access Ladder
Damage
Copfton When Mahitenance
is Needed
Trash and debris accumulated
In vault, pipe or inlettoutiet
(includes floatables and non-
floatables).
Sediment accumulation in vault
bottom exceeds the depth of the
sediment zone plus 6-inches.
Inlettoutlet piping damaged or
broken and in need of repair._
Cover cannot be opened or
removed, especially by one
person.
Ventilation area blocked or
plugged.
Maintenancefinspection
personnel determine that the
vault is not structurally sound.
Cracks wider than 1/2-inch at
the joint of any Inlettoutlet pipe
or, evidence of soil particles
entering through the cracks.
Baffles corroding, cracking,
warping and/or showing signs of
failure as determined by
mainteriancerinspection staff.
er is corroded or
deteriorated, not functioning
properly, not attached to
structure wall, missing rungs,
has cracks and/or misaligned.
Confined space warning sign
missing.
Results ExpectedVIlhen
-MaInterianceis Performed
Remove trash and debris from vault.
Remove sediment from vault.
Pipe repaired and/or replaced.
Pipe repaired or replaced to proper
working specifications.
Bloc king material removed or cleared
from ventilation area. A specified %
of the vault surface area must provide
ventilation to the vault Interior (see
design specifications).
Vault replaced or repairs made so
that vault meets design specifications
and is structurally sound.
Vault repaired so that no cracks exist
wider than 1/4-inch at the joint of the
inlet/outlet pipe.
Baffles repaired or replaced to
specifications.
4adder replaced or repaired to
specifications, and is safe to use as
determined by inspection personnel.
Replace sign warning of confined
space entry requirements. Ladder
and entry notification complies with
OSHA standards.
Volume V — Runoff Treatment BMPs 4-43
No. 18 — C2tchbasin Inserts
IR
Pefi6
Conditiom when -makdenanc0s
Reiults'-Expected ften
k3k"nan-ce -is Nil6rmed
General
Sediment
Accumulation
When sediment forms a cap over the
insert media of the Insert and/or unit
No sediment cap on the insert
media and its unit.
Trash and
Debris
Accumulation
Trash and debris accumulates on insert
unit creating a blockage/restriction.
Trash and debri's removed
from insert unit. Runoff freely
flows into catch basin.
Media Insert Not
Removing Oil
-Effluent water from media insert has a
visible sheen.
Effluent water from media
insert Is free of oils and has no
visible sheen.
Media Insert
Water Saturated
Catch basin insert I's saturated with water
and no longer has the capacity to
absorb.
Remove and replace media
Insert.
Media Ins ert-Oil
Saturated
Media oil saturated due to petroleum sp ill
that drains into catch basin.
Remove and replace media
insert.
Media Insert Use
Beyond Normal
Product Life
Media has been used beyond the typical
average life of media Insert product.
Remove and replace media at
regular InteNals, depending on
insert product.
Volume V —Runoff Treatment BMPs August 2001
, 4.
zl�
City of Edmonds
Permit Application Form
Form A
Permit� Application for: E].1,NeWSin1gje Family
Fj Interior Remodel El 6-arage/Carpott
F] Pence n'Gra"ding cvds
F] Tenant I m provement/Chainge'- of U.se'
Rockery/Retaining WAR:
Other (Specify).
Brief Description: A6
Site Address:
Sno County Tax AccCu
-77'21 -3 4-
Business/Tenant Name (if applicable):
"�j s9z
ew. Com/Apt E] Addition,..
epair Sion.
E] Stdrage/Shed,
Fl- Fire System, (Specify.:)
DATE:
GO-4 IA-L 6G)tLj>1^f(g (9U/L_D1/jC0
0()7__00?_
PROPERTY OWNER: A z1_ (--a- (S7; )m &,JD S L �L
Suite #
Mailing Address: -2-37?--:�;, 1 /2,� IL_ 1-i
City:_ 6jo opti"-'ry State: tAJ14r Zip: I go 0-,(D
Phone: (206) 542- -4-4-11 FAX: ( Z06 ) 5-4 ?-- (16 9-4-- E-Mail: 1&t(0_ 40JIMI- 60f,
43) 7Se a:s: ;P r /13
CONTRAC
Mailing Address:_/"O�
city
Phone: (_)
,State: -Zip:
FAX: (_)
E-Mail:
StjgF Fu n7be r, Exp: Date: n
r
-L- - THE RLy
1 11 S E7
APPLICANT/CONTACT: ElSame as Property Owner DSarne as Contrac
Fill out the following information if "Other".
Name & Mailing Address: 7m_^-nA-e;, A16
City:_ 5'7A7J0J0CD State:
Phone: (
6 2-1 — _27y 91�5_
M
FAX: ( :56-0 ) 6 Zq — 5-*3 57'
—Zip: 21
E-Mail:
M4,t I-, Cov"
L:\TEMP\BUILDING\WEBchecklists\SFR.COMM.APP.doc5/24/2007
J
(),C ED Af
C.d Kun CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020
PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
C. C)
BUILDING APPLICATION ACCEPTANCE
Monday, December 17,2007
This Application has been accepted by the City of Edmonds for review. More information and changes may be
required during this process. The review target date is: Monday, February 04, 2008
Your City Contact is: THERESAUMBAUGH
Application Number: BLD20071258
Project Address: 23334 HIGHWAY 99, EDMONDS
PROPEWINONNINER APPLICANT
AZ @ EDMONDS LLC THOMAS THOMPSON AIA
23723 112TH PL W 29619 15TH AVE NE
WOODWAY, WA 98020 STANWOOD, WA 98292
206-542-4411 360-629-3985
Vork Description:
VEWCOMMERCL4L BUILDINGA
)utstanding hems at Time of SubFWftal:
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGETUATI HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION THATTHE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT
M THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENTO F THEPROPERTY OWNER TO
SIr
,KATURP(OWNER 0 R AGENT) PR[NTNAME DATESIGNED
To view up to date information about your application please visit the City ofEdmonds Development Services
website at ht1p.-11www.ci.edmonds.wa.us.
,21y7 g
City of Edmonds
Permit Application Form
Form A
Permit Ap
plication-for: [],New,8ingle Family New Com/Apt: Ej Addition.
Fl. Int6rior' Remodel EJ, parag6lCarport �,Repair Rsigm
F-1 Fence E] Grading, cvds, F1 StbrageiShed
Tenant 1-mprovement/Change,-.of.Use'' E] Fire Systbm'(Specify)
F] Rbckery/Retaining Wall.
tZ17-07
n Other (Specify) DATE.
Brief Description: 60 (L-%> f,,-J(a
Site Address: 27-5-5 5 S- Suite #
Sno County Tax Account Parcel #: e6 5-7G 7 0 0 c)o 2_0 0 12,
Business/Tenant Name (if applicable):
PROPERTY OWNER: A 9- 0- 1 fz,-- P m c � � 5, L L C
Mailing Address: Z_ r3 TZ-5 /f Z , k1
City:_ (4joob e,� State: AM- zip: ft, zz
. t FAX: 54-?- - T9 5-4— E-Mail: A�C 1<,404W
Phone.
CONTRACTOR: DSame as Property Owner 00ther (Name)
Mailing Address:
City: State: Zip:
Phone: FAX:
E-Mail:
State License Number: Exp: Date: City Business License No:
APPLICANUCONTACT. DSame as,Prooerty Owner � 0SameasContractor___,*Lher
Fill out the following information if "Other".
Name & Mailing Address: 7&_kvs1,A5 Tbwt.4,,,v5a-4 A-(4 Ole r? / 5-m- Ave- ^/�F
City:
Phone:
!?7?4-^fW0&17D
State: 144 Zip: Je2_q?_
FAX: (366 ) 4
E-Mail:- -6��(J^40e) (W
3 Ivi A-1 L',
L:\TEMP\BUILDING\WEBchecklists\SFR.COMM.APP.doc5/24/2007
OV FD4
A�y
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020
PHONE: (425) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
Monday, December 17,2007
This Application has been accepted by the City of Edmonds for review. More information and changes may be
required during this process. The review target date is: Monday, February 04, 2008
Your City Contact is: THERESAUMBAUCH
Application Number: BLD20071259
Project Address: 23332 HIGHWAY 99, EDMONDS
AZ @ EDMONDS LL.0
23723 112TH PL W
WOODWAY, WA 98020
206-5424411
Work Descripfion:
NEWCOMMERCL4L BUILDING B
Outstanding Items at Time of Submittal:
THOMAS THOMPSON A IA
29619 15TH AVE NE
STANWOOD, WA 98292
360-629-3985
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATIONTHATINE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT
AND_ M THE PROPERTY OWNER, OR ]ME DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE PROPERTY OWNER TO
SUBMITA BUILDING PERMIT APPLICATIO N TO THECITY.
YJ A(A
-S<NATU&Le( '0 WNER 0 R PRINTNAME DATESIGNED
To view up to date infornwtion about your application please visit the City ofEdnionds Developtnent Services
website at http.1Avww.ci.ednwnds.wa.us.
City of Edmonds
Permit Application Form
Form A
Permit Application for: E] New. Single Family
lntdrioe,�Remodel' E] Gariag'e/'Carport
Q Fence - - n Grad, i n,g , cvds
E] Tenantlmptovement/Changd�oif Use�-
Rockery/Retaining Wall
Other (Specify)
Brief Description:
&14-- t
OV 1)
/ Oc. 194
X New Co'm/Apt El Addition
E] Repair F1 Sign
n Storage/Shed
El Fire System (Specify)
4-- 5
DATE: 12-W-6
ot L. OtU&S
Site Address: 72 12 A 6 Suite #
Sno County Tax Account Parcel M-00 5 7 G 70 ooO 000Z,
Business/Tenant Name (if applicable):
PROPERTY OWNER: L L,
Mailing Address: 'Z-`3 7 Z3 7H
City: W60 D &-PAIr State: 4J74 Zip:
Phone: ( 706).54-2--4111 FAX: ( to (1 54 Z-
CONTRACTOR:
Mailing Address:_
City:
Phone:
E]Same,as Property Owner 00ther (Name)
A07- I,C--r
State Ucense Number:
State:
FAX: (_)
No=
E-Mail:-,P&Zd Cam
,Zip:
E-Mail:
Exp: Date: City Business License No:
APPLICANT/CONTACT: DSame,as PropertV Owner OSame as.Contractor
____xother
Fill out the following information if "Other".
Name & Mailing Address: -7W61P5�011 A14-
;7,16 N ("Tt"t
City:- S-72�WC)61�� State: . 6VA-. zip, YJPZ ?Z-
Phone: _6 1-7 �'5 Ig!;;7 FAX: 54-5:5-- E-Mail: 6tSIVAA.&O (�"- eM4(L, Ca4l
v
L:\TEMP\BUILDING\WEBchecklists\SFR.COMM.APP.doc5/24/2007
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS,WA 98020
PHONE: (425.) 771-0220 - FAX: (425) 771-0221
Monday, December 17,2007
This Application has been accepted by the City of Edmonds for review. More information and changes may be
required during this process. The review target date is: Monday, February 04, 2008
Your City Contact is: THERESAUMBAUGH
Application Number: BLD20071260
Project Address: 23-3 )3 )0 HIGHWAY 99, EDMONDS
AZ @ EDMONDS LLC
23723 112TH PL W
WOODWAY, WA 98020
206-542-4411
Work Description:
NEWCOMMERCL4L BUILDING C
Outs tanding hems at Time of S ubinittal:
THOMAS THOMPSON AIA
29619 15TH AVE NE
STANWOOD, WA 98292
360-629-3985
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGETHAT I HAVE READ IMIS APPLICATION'MATIME INFO RMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT
AND THAT I AM THEPROPERTY OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENTO FTHE PROPERTY OWNER TO
BUILDING PERMIT APPLICA'nO N TO THECITY.
-7-
-tfLi.. - A-i , , , , i Aj.A 9 r7—,n-7
(OWNER OR AGE"
To view up to date information about your application please visit the City ofEdmonds Development Services
website at http://www.ci.ednwnds.wa.us.
RISIESUR
JUN 23 2008
�tE
,�T
�jr
22703
8113
227091 22710 22710 22717
22712 W
0 22708
22711 >
22715" 1 <
.7 ' 6 72 22716
8109 7928 1 22711 07
8231
22716 22720 .71�7
22716
2272V 2727
6227
22730
;7 22728 76,9 21711
�7,
7619
> PA H ST sW--
T
T�. CP -1 1W 4
17- o 9 o 0'
- -4 22807
-77 228W 22.7
ate
T
8,5
22815
an 79207----- 7 Lumber
1 8130 22815
8211 22821
L. D. S.
22908
22910
22M� 22904 2
22905 8224 1 22829
Church
a207
22904 22903
412!
�9LTMST
: �22910 cO 22911 v) 22903
_91 22a28
W12 22912 8021
22911 1 0 '0
229W/ :: 0- Ar 22911
::n9l:
22918 IL 22917 Conquest 4F 22921
1 22917
Z
a2ll U) — Center
8W5 � '. '. 1. N .
8127 8107
Brentwood
Plaza 22925
23)TH ST SW
23007 23008
W 23007 8M 8204
> — T 8 2 R Spray'
o o
.5 23013 23014 .3: 23015 23010 23011 King 23005
— LU —
23019' 23020 > 23021 — — 23022 1823014 15 230 L 4 :L- —1
< 23020 2302t
— — I . . ZD 23017
23023 23024 '6 23010 A,4,
23027' 23028 Er: 23m
6 9 2303 �-4
23030 - Public Storage 2W21
Lu 23029 2. 2.1,
23101 23102 23103 32 3030
231 23104
23107
23108 23109 b 23107 23122 23103
Z — 23110
23116
23114 North Side
23115; 23116 23117 23115 - Sunset Villa 24+"
23116
2310
23121 23122 23123 23300
23117
23129 5 15Y
23130 231
23131
.1 23201
2321 4,2%s
21
23221
23221
23225
M.11 st s --H-H9 80
23231' 23305 '5 — 2W25
:�323
=3
23304 3
23231 23307
23315
233t2 23315
8129 23319 80
23311 — 23323
233.-1
23320 8121 23U7 Alp
233�.S 23316 �Z Ha
1 a 8117
0034_4044 a
8230
2UI91 8300
2342 8123
W06
8121
Christ Lutheran 0
Church Park Edmonds
Apartments
23525 23515
PEA &Ride 0
�23 1 23rOl
60
23603
,236 5
0
23607
:-:23619 Safeway
23632 236.
41 23129
I bvv
23205
23215
23215
23207 23217
23225
T709
A,. 233D5 23307
D Plj�-
233(Y
7711
> 23311
Uj
23329
7811 31 ej. 2=5
TS 23329
23406
23406 7712 23402
234M
2U12 23411
— T710
23418 Uj 23417 23414
7708
23422 23421
23431
23428 7706 22
23432
23439
— 7727
235M 23440
7919 — T725 23513
7925 23514 23"6 1. 23530
7929
23450
2351
23456
7515
236TH ST SW
7918 3: 1,% 7710 23602 23601 7604
— ui 236D,
>
< 23614 46
M: 361 23604 23603
236 23606 23605 23620
20 23621
— \D6 3
F6 2 3626\
02 23628
3628
TREET FILE]
PLANNING DATA F15�
New Commercial / Multi -Family Projects
,�V
Name: Date:
Site Address: :?,,--7 Plan Check It: BLD
2 2-3 -7-
Project Description: Mew ;P_R,4A,4,f -,e- > r, >
Use(s) Proposed.-
Allowed Us rT�O)
CUP File Number-
To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued
y(YES�NO)
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES NO)
OF Anation:
Map Page: p Plan De
Corner Lor- (Y�ES) NO) lafj LoVA(A)
14,, 6,69. a
ADB FiI6 Number (date waived):. A
Plans Match ADB Approved
Critical Areas Determi
�<Study Re ' e
El Waiver
SEPA Determinati
El Exempt
><! Needed (for sites with 500 cubic yards of grad with 2 0 feet of Puget Sound or Lake
Ballinger. Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmenta%l JOcklist, (3).APO List with notarized form).
lo? 14"ASeAfae4 Require cks
t e ide- 0 i : r
(1:7- 9.1) +0P P-WM
%.- qqxv� tbacks :;��44A 54-r4j
Street: V I Side: e:
Lot Coverage/FAR Required: overage/FAR Provided:
W .0--
Lot Coverage/FAR Calculations:
Building Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height:
I
Actual Height -
Subdivision:
Lot Aggregation Required: 4x ace-+ *�, k4t+ te.'J'Q F Ace st
Landscaping
Landscaping Matches ADO Approved:
Land caping Bid Provided: (YES I NO)
Bond Amount (100% Bid):
Plan Review By:
V,
f PLANNING DATA
New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects
T FILE
I E��
Commercial Parking Analysis
Business Name
�1
Type/Use
—
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking
r&-b4
I '.
t
qOX
rot, a I �jr,�inj d.-
R,�Wulr'e
7�7
-V
Pa rk ILng;Prf �,Vid:e!
�.'. P I '. V 41 * ? , � - V --
01, - I 1.&, .16 g 'A '?
,.-,sfiYltiiFairyilyPa',-kingA�7dI /*S
Required
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
�V,!, Park'Ing Ratio
# Units
Parking
Studio
1.2/D.U-
_�5/1).0
ol
1 Bedroom
i .�
2 Bedrooms
1.8
4.
3 + Bedrooms
_.,,�2. 0 D. U.
Total Parking Re�red.-
/00_� TOIJI,Parking Provided.'
Plan Review By: ��h leeO��
J,
;v" .10,
RESUB
JUN 2 3 2008
May 1, 2008
Blaine Chesterfield, Engineering Division
City of Edmonds
RE: I st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#20071258, 1259 and 1260) dated January 09,
2008.
Dear Blaine,
I have revised the attached plans based on your review comments. The review comments are
numbered on the letter and have been addressed as follows:
I We have added NPDES from DOE under Other Permits. We will obtain the permit
during the review process.
2. Sizing calculations has been added to the report and shown on the TESC plans too.
3. Updated the design per the rainfall data from City of Edmonds.
4. Will inquire and apply from ISGP if needed.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Brian Kalab, PE
3630ColbyAve * Everett,WA 98201 * Phone:. (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 # Email:info@insightengineering.net
CITY C
T h o rn a s T h o rn p s o n A I A
May 30, 2008
Theresa Umbaugh
Senior Permit Coordinator
City of Edmonds
1. 21 5th Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Plan Check BLD2007-1258-1259 & 1260 RETAIL BLDGS
Dear Ms. Umbaugh:
B
jUN 2 3 2008
"W&V00'TUr
We herewith present our re -submittal of drawings and related matters to address the
comments raised by the city most recently on April 30, 2008, some of which had not
previously been shared with us.
The documents have been or will be delivered under separate cover by the Owner.
In any event, please accept this as our written response, as well.
Jan 4/08 letter from John Westfall, Fire Marshall:
1 . To be responded to by Civil.
2. Loading areas are not required for each individual building.
3. Site plans have been updated accordingly.
4. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
5. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
6. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
7. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
8. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
9. Elevation Sheets have been updated accordingly-
10. Floor Plans have been updated accordingly. - -
Jan 2/08 transmittal of plan review from Linda McMurphy, Public Works:
To be responded to by Civil.
Jan 9/08 transmittal of plan review from Blaine Chesterfield, Engin
To be responded to by Civil.
Jan 22/08 plan review from Jon Lein of Wastewater Treatment:
To be responded to by Civil
29619 15 1 h Avenue NE, Stanwood, WA
tsci(cDatt.net
cell: 206-409-0755 phone: 360-629-3985 fax
98292
qcEgUED
JUL
0 3 2008
EECE
360-629-5435
Feb 20/08 plan review letters (both) from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering:
To be responded to by Civil.
Feb 4/08 plan review comments for Building A from Ann Bullis, Building:
I bldg code classifications have been changed so that all buildings are
categofted as Groups M and B allowing for some leasing flexibility.
Given parking needs it's unlikely that a food use would need to be
more than Group B. In any case, the Tenant Improvement Permit
review will cover tenant specifics of restrooms, etc and other code
related items. This is the industry standard approach for multi -tenanted
commercial bldgs of this nature.
2. All requisite notations have been made throughout
3. Only Building B is sprinkled.
4. Floor areas corrected on TO.].
5. Addresses modified on all sheets.
6. As these are multi -tenant buildings, the convention is to designate the
possible suite breakup, documents show this.
7. Shown on the plans.
8. Shown on the plans.
9. Deferred to tenant improvement permits, however no tenant space
proposed requires a drinking fountain unless floor areas increase.
10. Not on plan for electrical design build to provide to code.
11. To be provided by the Owner.
12. Corrections made.
13. Forms for all three buildings provided.,
14. Window and Door information to code provided.
15. On the plans.
16. Details correctly flagged.
17. Correct, as is.
18. Done
19. Done.
20. More info added.
21. By Owner.
22. By Owner.
23. By Owner.
24. See details on plans.
25. See details on plans.
26. See details on plans.
27. See details on plans.
28. See details on plans.
29. Sheet revised.
30. Notes made on the plans.
31. See structural and sheet TO. 1, Form by Owner.
32. By Owner.
from City Consultant:
1. omit
2. Only Bldg B requires Spinklers.
3.
Done.
4.
Critical Occ Load not reached.
5.
Omit
6.
Done.
7.
Shown.
8.
Done.
9.
Done.
10.
Done.
11.
Done.
12.
Done.
13.'
Done.
See Structural Engineer's Response Letter.
Feb 5/08 plan
review comments for Building B from Ann Bullis, Building:
1 .
A2 use deleted, Bldg designed for Groups M and B.
2.
Done.
3.
Sprinkled.
4.
Done.
5.
Done.
6.
Done.
7.
Corrected.
8.
Done.
9.
See Response Bldg A.
10.
Done.
11.
Done
12.
Done
13.
Not required unless T.I. exceeds Occ. Load.
14.
Reference to Elect Design Build.
15.
By Owner.
16.
Done
17.
Done.
18.
Done.
19.
Done
20.
Done.
21.
Done
22.
Done
23.
Done.
24.
Done.
25.
By Owner.
26.
By Owner.
27.
By Owner.
28.
Done.
29.
Done
30.
Done.
31.
Done.
32.
Done.
33.
Done.
34.
Form by Owner. Notes on Arch and Structural plans.
35.
By Owner.
A a
from City Consultant:
1. omit
2. Only Bldg B requires Spinklers.
3. Done.
4. Critical Occ Load not reached.
5. Omit
6. Done.
7. Shown.
8. Done.
9. Done.
10. Done.
11. Done.
12. Done.
13. Done.
See Structural Engineer's Response Letter.
Feb 5/08 plan
review comments for Building C from Ann Bullis, Building:
36.
A2 use deleted, Bldg designed for Groups M and B.
37.
Done.
38.
Sprinkled.
39.
Done.
40.
Done.
41.
Done.
42.
Corrected.
43.
Done.
44.
See Response Bldg A.
45.
Done.
46.
Done
47.
Done
48.
Not required unless T.I. exceeds Occ. Load.
49.
Reference to Elect Design Build.
50.
By Owner.
51.
Done
52.
Done.
53.
Done.
54.
Done
55.
Done.
56.
Done
57.
Done
58.
Done.
59.
Done.
60.
By Owner.
61.
By Owner.
62.
By Owner.
63.
Done.
64.
Done
65.
Done.
66.
Done.
I A
67. Done.
68. Done.
69. Form by Owner. Notes on Arch and Structural plans.
70. By Owner.
from City Consultant:
14. omit
15. Only Bldg B requires Spinklers.
16. Done.
17. Critical Occ Load not reached.
18. Omit
19. Done.
20. Shown.
21. Done.
22. Done.
23. Done.
24. Done.
25. Done.
26. Done.
I
See Structural Engineer's Response Letter.
Jan 31, 08lplan review from Kathleen Taylor, Planning:
1. Sheet revised.
2. See plans
3. Design Review:
a. Color elevations provided.,
b. Site Lighting to be provided by Owner.
c. Fee by Owner.
d. C-1:
1. Building massing and unit layouts are different between all
three bldgs.
2. Building's are sited differently relative to setbacks, and
property line orientations.
3. Building's are sited differently relative to adjacent buildings.
4. Open spaces (landscaped spaces) are varied throughout
the site.
5. Exterior materials are uniform to unify visual scheme.
C-2:
1 . Bldgs have individual entries as each has different floor
plans.
2. Building Forms are different, with similar vocabulary.
3. Building plans are different to create variety.
4. Buildings are of different sizes and orientations.
Trash enclosure:
Plans show 6ft high screen walls to city dimensions c/w
gates. Kroof is not provided, nor necessary.
4. Landscaping:
Landscaping changes have been made.
5. Pedestrian Walkways are shown on the Plans. Painted linework complies with
City code.
t 6. Height calculations show on the site plan.
7. owner to provide SEPA.
8. Owner to provide Critical Area Determination form.
9. Owner to combine parcels.
10. No response needed.
This package contains the correct. Energy Compliance forms.
The Owner will process the Special Inspection form at time of permit pickup.
The Owner will coordinate the General Contractor information requested when that
decision has been reached.
The structural and civil revisions are also included and sets of documents attached. The
structural engineer's response letter is also included.
The Owner, whose name this permit is under, has been advised to apply for an extension,
however it is unclear if that is essential if we are still under review. If we are in error and
some formal method of request is needed and not being supplied by the Owner, please
notify the undersigned.
We consider the submission of these revised plans constitute our re -submittal.
All comments we believe have been addressed on the plans.
I
Should there be anything further please advise accordingly
Sincerely,
Thomas Thompson AIA
c/c Pat Morris
RESUB
JUN � 3 2008
r t
1-i- nr -le M M
May 1, 2008
Linda McMurphy, Public Works Department
City of Edmonds
RE: I st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#2007125 8, 1259 and 1260) dated January 02,
2008.
Dear Linda,
I have revised the attached plans based on your review comment. The review comment has been
addressed as follows:
I Premize isolation with a (RPBA) Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly
has been provided at meter in hot box.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
z" ��Z/
Brian Kalab, PE
3630 Colby Ave * Everett, WA 98201 * Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 * Email:info@insightengineering.net
RESUB
CITY COPY JUN 23 2008
Bl�
t" 1, S' I*" C)FS%�N
May 1, 2008
John Westfall, Fire Marshall
City of Edmonds
RE: I st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#20071258, 1259 and 1260) dated January 04,
2008.
Dear John,
I have revised the attached plans based on your review comment. The review comments have
been addressed as follows:
I CIVILS: OVWD detail has been provided on water and sewer plan. A note to
upgrade FH steamer ports as required has been provided.
2. Architect to address.
3. Architect to address.
4. Architect to address.
5. Architect to address.
6. Architect to address.
7. Architect to address.
8. Architect to address.
9. Architect to address.
10. Architect to address.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
;V"— ��4z
Brian Kalab, PE
0
3630 Colby Ave * Everett, WA 98201 * Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 * Email:info@insightengineering.net
4
A
4
t (1, S, Ii
nm
May 1, 2008
Jeanie McConnell, Engineering Program Manager
City of Edmonds
jp
JUNI 23 2008
E%R� &_Vjj�SA'�rr
MONWff
RE: I st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#2007125 8, 1259 and 1260) dated February
20,2008.
Three sets of revised plans or documents have been submitted with a written response to each of
the items below. Since there are too many changes on the plans, clouds were not provided. One
set of all plans are wet -signed.
Dear Jeanie,
I have revised theattached plans based on your review comments. The review comments are
numbered on the letter and have been addressed as follows:
General:
I .
Tom to address
2.
Tom to address
3.
Tom to address
4.
Tom to address
5.
Tom to address
C2 - TESC and GradinE Plan:
I . Details have been added to Sheet C3.
2. Construction entrance has been terminated at the private property.
3. We are proposing a one-way access for the vehicles during construction with a rock
construction loop.
4. The outfall is tight lined.
5. Done. See plans.
6. See Sheet C2 for a demo plan.
7. Done.
8. Notes have been revised.
9. TESC notes added.
C3 - Road and Drainne Plan:
I We have re -surveyed the storm system and found that there is drainage flowing onto
the site from the north as well as from the west. These are closed conveyance systems
and we are proposing to bypass the flows to the downstream course.
2. See revised plans.
3. See revised plans.
3630 Colby Ave * Everett, WA 98201 # Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362' # Email:info@insightengineering.net
-Z�
t It S
T
b
4. We have revised the invert elevations to address this comment. See revised plan.
5. The pipe is RCP and shall not be replaced.
6. There are two accesses proposed. One is a 5'x 10' grated access door at the outlet and
a 24-inch opening at the inlet.
7. It meets water quality requirements for EMS 18.30.060.13 and 1992 DOE.
8. See revised plans for Driveway access and curb ramps.
9. See revised plans for the curb ramp.
10. See revised plans.
11. See revised plans.
12. Done.
13. Added note to relocate power pole.
14. Added note to repaint the fog line.
15. See attached retaining wall design.
16. Done.
17. Wall drain is shown on the plans.
C4 - Detention Plan:
1. The detention Vault plan has been revised.
C5 - Water and Sewer Plan:
1. The sewer/water plan has been submitted to OVWSD for review. We will submit copies
upon approval.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
/Irian KZaIab, �PE
3630 Colby Ave # Everett, WA 98201 # Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 # Email:info@insightengineering.net
4
n �
May 1, 2008
Blaine Chesterfield, Engineering Division
City of Edmonds
RE: 1 st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#20071258, 1259 and 1260) dated January 09,
2008.
Dear Blaine,
I have revised the attached plans based on your review comments. The review commen'ts are
numbered on the letter and. have been addressed as follows:
I We have added NPDES from DOE under Other Permits. We will obtain the permit
during the review process.
2. Sizing calculations has been added to the report and shown on the TESC plans too.
3. Updated the design per the rainfall data from City of Edmonds.
4. Will inquire and -apply from ISGP if needed.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
J, � 4/�
Brian Kalab, PE
3630 Colby Ave # Everett, WA 98201 * Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 # Email:info@insightengineering.net
May 1, 2008
Linda McMurphy, Public Works Department
City of Edmonds
RE: I st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#20071258, 1259 and 1260) dated January 02,
2008.
Dear Linda,
I have revised the attached plans based on your review comment. The review comment has been
addressed as follows:
1. Premize isolation with a (RPBA) Reduced Pressure Backflow Prevention Assembly
has been provided at meter in hot box. ,
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
Brian Kalab, PE
3630 Colby Ave * Everett, WA 98201 # Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 # Email:info@insightengineering.net
T-
May 1, 2008
John Westfall, Fire Marshall
City of Edmonds
RE: I st Review Responses for A2@EDMONDS (#2007125 8, 125 9 and 1260) dated January 04,
2008.
Dear John,
I have revised the attached plans based on your review comment. The review comments have
been addressed as follows:
I CIVILS: OVWD detail has been provided on water and sewer plan. A note to
upgrade FH steamer ports as required has been provided.
2. Architect to address.
3. Architect to address.
4. Architect to address.
5. Architect to address.
6. Architect to address.
7. Architect to address.
8. Architect to address.
9. Architect to address.
10. Architect to address.
Please call if you have questions.
Sincerely,
10'A// -
Brian Kalab, PE
3630 Colby Ave * Everett, WA 98201 * Phone: (425) 303-9363
Fax: (425) 303-9362 # Email:info@insightengineering.net
rry
T h o rn a s T h o rn p s o n
May 30, 2008
Theresa Umbaugh
Senior Permit Coordinator
City of Edmonds
121 5th Ave North
Edmonds, WA 98020
RE: Plan Check BLD2007-1258-1259 L 1260 RETAIL BLDGS
Dear Ms. Umbaugh:
RESUR
4"Opy jUN 28 2008
A I A
We herewith present our re -submittal of drawings and related. matters to address the
comments.raised by the city most recently on April 30, 2008, some of which had not
previously been shared with us.
The documents have been or will be delivered under separate cover by the Owner.
In any event, please accept this as our written response, as well.
Jan 4/08 letter from John Westfall, Fire Marshall:
I . To be responded to by Civil.
2. Loading areas are not required for each individual building.
3. Site plans have been updated accordingly.
4. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
5. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
6. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
7. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
8. Title Sheet has been updated accordingly.
9. Elevation Sheets have been updated accordingly.
10. Floor Plans have been updated accordingly.
Jan 2/08 transmittal of plan review from Linda McMurphy, Public Works:
To be responded to by Civil.
Jan 9/08 transmittal of plan review from Blaine Chesterfield, Engineering:
To be responded to by Civil.
Jan 22/08 plan review from Jon Lein of Wastewater Treatment:
To be responded to by Civil
29619 15 t h Avenue NE, Stanwood, WA 98292
tsq(cDatt.net
cell: 206-409-0755 phone: 360-629-3985 fax: 360-629-5435
�eb 20/08 plan review letters (both) from Jeanie McConnell, Engineering:
To be responded to by Civil.
Feb 4/08 plan
review comments for Building A from Ann Bullis, Building:
1 .
bIdg code classifications have been changed so that all buildings are
categorized as Groups M and B allowing for some leasing flexibility.
Given parking needs it's unlikely that a food use would need to be
more than Group B. In any case, the Tenant Improvement Permit
review will cover tenant specifics of restrooms, etc and other code
related items. This is the industry standard approach for m.ulti-tenanted
commercial bldgs of this nature.
2.
All requisite notations have been made throughout
3.
Only Building B is sprinkled.
4.
Floor areas corrected on TO. 1.
5.
Addresses modified on all sheets.
6.
As these are multi -tenant buildings, the convention is to designate the
possible suite breakup, documents show this.
7.
Shown on the plans.
8.
Shown on the plans.
9.
Deferred to tenant improvement permits, however no tenant space
proposed requires a drinking fountain unless floor areas increase.
10.
Not on plan for electrical design build to provide to code.
11.
To be provided by the Owner.
12.
Corrections made.
13.
Forms for all three buildings provided.,
14.
Window and Door information to code provided.
15.
On the plans.
16.
Details correctly flagged.
17.
Correct, as is.
18.
Done
19.
Done.
20.
More info added.
21.
By Owner.
22.
By Owner.
23.
By Owner.
24.
See details on plans.
25.
See details on plans.
26.
See details on plans.
27.
See details on plans.
28.
See details on plans.
29.
Sheet revised.
30.
Notes made on the plans.
31.
See structural and sheet TO. 1, Form by Owner.
32.
By Owner.
from City Consultant:
I . omit
2. Only Bldg B requires Spinklers.
3.
Done.
4.
Critical Occ Load not reached.
5.
Omit
6.
Done.
7.
Shown.
8.
Done.
9.
Done.
10.
Done.
11.
Done.
12.
Done.
13.
Done.
See Structural Engineer's Response Letter.
Feb 5/08 plan review comments for Building B from Ann Bullis, Building:
1 . A2 use deleted, Bldg designed for Groups M and B.
2. Done.
3. Sprinkled.
4. Done.
5. Done.
6. Done.
7. Corrected.
8. Done.
9. See Response Bldg A.
10. Done.
11. Done
12. Done
13. Not required unless T.I. exceeds Occ. Load.
14. Reference to Elect Design Build.
15. By Owner.
16. Done
17. Done.
18. Done.
19. Done
20. Done.
21. Done
22. Done
23. Done.
24. Done.
25. By Owner.
26. By Owner.
27. By Owner.
28. Done.
29. Done
30. Done.
31. Done.
32. Done.
33. Done.
34. Form by Owner. Notes on Arch and Structural plans.
35. By Owner.
from City Consultant:
1. omit
2. Only Bldg B requires Spinklers.
3. Done.
4. Critical Occ Load not reached.
5. Omit
6. Done.
7. Shown.
8. Done.
9. Done.
10. Done.
11. Done.
12. Done.
13. Done.
See Structural Engineer's Response Letter.
Feb 5/08 plan review comments for Building C from Ann Builis, Building:
36. A2 use deleted, Bldg designed for Groups M and B.
37. Done.
38. Sprinkled.
39. Done.
40. Done.
41. Done.
42. Corrected.
43. Done.
44. See Response Bldg A.
45. Done.
46. Done
47. Done
48. Not required unless T.I. exceeds Occ. Load.
49. Reference to Elect Design Build.
50. By Owner.
51. Done
52. Done.
53. Done.
54. Done
55. Done.
56. Done
57. Done
58. Done.
59. Done.
60. By Owner.
61. By Owner.
62. By Owner.
63. Done.
64. Done
65. Done.
66. Done.
I . r .
67. Done.
68. Done.
69. Form by Owner. Notes on Arch and Structural plans.
70. By Owner.
from City Consultant:
14. omit
15. Only Bldg B requires Spinklers.
16. Done.
17. Critical Occ Load not reached.
18. Omit
19. Done.
20. Shown.
21. Done.
22. Done.
23. Done.
24. Done.
25-Done.
26. Done.
See Structural Engineer's Response Letter.
i
Jan 31, 08 plan review from Kathleen Taylor, Planning:
1. Sheet revised.
2. See plans
3. Design Review:
a. Color elevations provided.,
b. Site Lighting to be provided by Owner.
c. Fee by Owner.
d. C-1:
1. Building massing and unit layouts are different between all
three bldgs.
2. Building's are sited differently relative to setbacks, and
property line orientations.
3. Building's are sited differently relative to adjacent buildings.
4. Open spaces (landscaped spaces) are varied throughout
the site.
5. Exterior materials are uniform to unify visual scheme.
C-2:
1 . Bldgs have individual entries as each has different floor
plans.
2. Building Forms are different, with similar vocabulary.
3. Building plans are different to create variety.
4. Buildings are of different sizes and orientations.
Trash enclosure:
Plans show 6ft high screen walls to city dimensions c/w
gates. A roof is not provided, nor necessary.
4. Landscaping:
Landscaping changes have been made.
5. Pedestrian Walkways are shown on the Plans. Painted linework complies with
City code.
6. Height calculations show on the site plan.
7. Owner to provide SEPA.
8. Owner to provide Critical Area Determination form.
9. Owner to combine parcels.
10. No response needed.
This package contains the correct Energy Compliance forms.
The Owner will process the Special Inspection form at time of permit pickup.
The Owner will coordinate the General Contractor information requested when that
decision has been reached.
The structural and civil revisions are also included and sets of documents attached. The
structural engineer's response letter is also included.
The Owner, whose name this permit is under, has been advised to apply for an extension,
however it is unclear if that is essential if we are still under review. If we are in error and
some formal method of request is needed and not being supplied by the Owner, please
I
hotify the undersigned.
We consider the submission of these revised plans constitute our re -submittal.
All comments we believe have been addressed on the plans.
Should there be anything further please advise accordingly
Sincerely,
Thomas Thompson AIA
�/c Pat Morris
sr!'11- IF
XOV."IrA
KOSNIK ENGINEERING, PC
A P r o F e s s i o ti 3 1 S c �j i ce s C o r p o r a t i o ?i
May 29, 2008
Mr. ' Thomas Thompson AIA
296 19 15TH Ave NE
Stanwood, WA 98292
Ref. Edmonds Commercial Development; KE project no K-07-034
Dear Tom:
RESUB
JUN 2 3 2008
"LW'9WdORTNWW
The following is our response to the City of Edmonds' plan review comments relayed in your email
dated May 13, 2008. All significant revisions/additions to our drawings have been clouded.
General
15. The calculation on sheet C-2 applies to the walls at the roof features where they are platform
framed. The top of wall was taken as 15% 1 1'minus the depth of the truss at 1'-4" giving us a height of
14.58ft. Also the calc uses a stud spacing of 16", which we revised to 12" for the construction
documents. Building A & B already call for a 12" stud spacing. Building C has been revised from a
16" spacing to a 12" spacing. I have attached a sheet C-2A for the condition where the wall is balloon
framed and the height is 16ft and the wall load above reduced to 40plf. The wall studs stud spacing of
12"o/c is ok. See response under sheet S3.3 for intermediate studs.
Sheet S2.1: Foundation & Roof Plans
16. Plan keynotes have been revised to correctly reference detail I O/S3.2. as follows:
Building A &C sheet S2.1 keynote 22
Building B sheet S2.1 keynote 21
18. This comment applies only to building A as the roof framing plan for buildings B and C are
correct. The keynotes and roof framing plan have been revised to clarify the locations of the 12"o/c
roofjoist spacing below the wall framing for the roof feature above.
Sheet 3.2: Details
18. A review' of the parapet stud capacity and anchorage is attached on sheet C-6. Details 10 and
11/§3.2 have been clarified to reflect the use of the LSTA24 strap tie at 48"o/c for both details.
19. This detail applies to the high roof attachment to the perimeter walls. at the high roof feature. I have
attached a calculation sheet D- 19, which addresses this shear transfer. The actual shear transfer force is
11 9plf on the short end walls. The exception to this is the center wall on building C where we have
added a detail 6A/S3.2 to call for A34 @ 12"o/c.
1051, 19TH Ave SE, Suite C, Everett, WA 98208 * (425) 357-9600 (phone) * (425) 357-9622 (fax)
ANNIFLE]
30riw]
KOSNIK ENG I NEER ING, PC
Sheet S3.3: Details
20. intermediate studs have been clarified in detail A/S3.3 for buildings A, B and C.
Sheet C4: Detention Plan
21 & 22. The vault design was completed and issued on 04-28-08 and were to have been submitted at
that! time. We are providing a copy of these plans and calculations in response to your review
comments requesting our design and construction drawings.
We itrust this information adequately addresses the comments. If you should have any questions, or
require additional information, please give us a call.
Sincerely,
Daniel Kosnik, PE
President
Enclosures; 3 pages of structural calculations
I
10511 19TH Ave SE, Suite C, Eyereft, WA 98208 * (425) 357-9600 (phone) * (425) 357-9622 (fax)
KOSNIK ENGINEERING Project: Edmonds Commercial sheet:
10511 19th Ave SE, Suite C date:
Everett, WA, (425)-357-9600 prj. no. K-07-034'
STUD WALL DESIGN
PERIMETER WALLS
WALL HEIGHT & LOADS
STUD DATA
MATERIALS
clear height
L=
16.00 ft
stud size
2x6
species= doug fir
(clear height inches)
192 in
breadth
b= 1.5
grade= No. 2
wall DL =
20 psf
depth
d= 5.5
in
E= 1.60E+06 psi
roof tributary width
20 ft
Area
A= 8.25
in2
Fb= 850 psi
roof TL
32 psf
Section modulus
S= 7.563
in3
Fc= 1400 psi
Wall load above
40 plf
Mom of Inertia
I= 20.8
in4
Emin= 5.80E+05 psi
Wall vertical load
W=
1000 plf
Wall lateral load
P=
16 psf
ADJUSTMENT FACTORS
Stud Spacing
S=
12 i n
Fb
Fc E
Size
CF =
1.30
1.10 na
Stud vertical load
P=
1000 lbs/stud
Repetitive Use
Cr =
1.15
na na
Stud lateral load
W=
16 plf
Load Duration
CD=
1.60
1.15 na
Wet Service
CM
1.00
1.00 1.00
buck length coeff
Ke=
1.00
eff col length le= Ke(L)=
192 in,
slender ratio
le/d=
34.9 < 50
ALLOWABLE STRESSES
Allow Bending Stress F'b = Fb(CO(Cr)(Cd)(Cm) 2033 psi
Fce= 391
coeff c 0.8 sawn lumber
E'min = Emin(Cm) 5.80E+05
adjusted comp Fc* Fc(Cq(Cd)(Cm) (psi) 1771
ratio Fce/Fc* 0.22
C1= 0.76
column stability factor Cp = 0.21
Allow Comp Stress F'c=CpFe (psi) 371 psi
Pallow 3065 lbs/stud
Axial Load is O.K.
ALLOWABLE COMPRESSIVE STRESSES 0 1 HR FIRE WALL
Allowable stress not to exceed 0.78(F'c) w/ le/d = 33:
Fce= 438
adjusted comp Fc* = Fc(CO(Cd)(Cm) (psi)= 1771
ratio Fce/Fc* 0.25
C1= 0.78
CP= 0.23
Allow comp F'c=CpFc* = 413 psi
Allowable comp stress = 290 psi
Pallow =' 2391 lbs/stud
Axial Load is O.K.
WALL PLATE BEARING CAPACITY
Comp perp to grain Fc = 625 psi
Bearing Area Factor Cb 1.00
Allow Comp F'c = 625 psi
Plate Bearing Capacity is O.K.
BEAM -COLUMN INTERACTION CHECK
Compressive Stress fc 121 psi
Bending Stress fbx = 812 psi
Amplification Factor = 1.45
Interaction for Non -Rated W 1:
(fc/F'c)2 + Amp(fbx/F'bx) = 0.69
Interaction for I hr Wall:
(fc/F'c)2 + Amp(fbx/F'bx) = 0775
-4-
REcEIVEL)
JUN - 9 2008
DEVELOMUE: RVICES
VR
bt I I � t,
/I) C. 1 sq�3
0
CITY OF EDMONDS
0, 'W V/
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 - FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www6edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building - Engineering
May 1.9, 2008
Thomas Thompson, AIA
29619 15th Ave NE
Stanwood, WA 98292
BWM, LLC
3425 24"' Ave W
Seattle, WA 98199
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
Re: Building, Permit Application: BLD2007-1258, 1259 & 1260 / AZ @ Edmonds
Site Address: 23330, 23332, & 23334 Highway 99
Expiration Date: 6/17/08
Dear Thomas Thompson, AIA:
The purpose of this letter is to infonn you that the above referenced permit application
will expire on 6/17/08. According to Edmonds Community Development Code Chapter
19.00.005(A)(5), applications are only valid for a period of 180 days unless a written
request for extension is submitted to the Building Official. If an application extension is
granted it may only be extended for an additional 180 days for a total period of one year.
If you need an extension on the Subject permit application You must submit a request in
writing to the Building Official prior to plan review expiration.
Please be advised, once the permit application expires, the application materials and plans
will be destroyed within ten working days. Also, if the project is pursued in the future a
new perrnit application and new fees will be required.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call our offices at 425-771-0220.
Sinc.,.Iely,
Theresa b
din o
Senior Permit Coor (5
L\Temp\DST's\M aster LetterMpp Due to expire 10/21/00
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
I
4
eVM 0q_9o,qI,q(dP'.)
October 11, 2007
Revised March, 18, 2007
Project No. 07-076
Mr. Patrick Morris
MorDevCo, LLC
P * 0. Box 60152
Seattle, Washington 98160-0152
Gary A. Floweri, PLLC
Geological & Geotelchnicall Cons.ulting
19532 12"' Avenue NE
Shoreline, WA "155-1106
CIT Y. C OPY
Subject: Subsurface Exploration and Geotechnical Engineenng Report
Edmonds Commercial Development
NW Quadrant of 230 St SW & Hwy 99
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Morris:
We have completed subsurface explorations and geologic/geotechnical engineering evaluations
at the "Edmonds Commercial Development" project site at -the above noted location in Edmonds,
Washington. This report summari7ts our findings, and presents information regarding
subsurface conditions and geotechnical engineering design recommendations for planning and
design of this,project-
The project site is located on the west side of Hwy 99 (Aurora Ave N) j ust north of 234h Street
SW in the southeast portion of the town of Edmonds. Development plans indicate that three
retail buildings will be constructed on the site in the approximate locations shown on Figure, 1,
Site and Exploration Plan. Associated parking lots and driveway will also be constructed as
shown. We understand that, at present, site grading details havenot been finalized. However,
preliminary plans indicate that only minor grading mill be required to accommodate building
sites, roads,. and ston-n detention and utility construction.
The purpose of our site evaluation was to characterize shallow soil and ground water conditions
on the property, and to provide geotecbnical engineering design recommendations for planning
and construction of the proposed development. The scope of our work included; 1) a review of
provided development plans, 2) research of geologic and soils mapping information in ourfiles,
3) exploration of'site soils conditions using small, client provided.. ba0khoe, 4) perform geologic
and geotechnical engineering evaluations. and 4) preparation of this report. Our field
explorations'were conducted on July 3 0, 2007.
1
Cary A. Flowenw, F -
19M 120 Am= NE Shorclim, Wi0tington W 55-1106
D E C E �'S E
JUL 0 3 2008
7-7640
I EEK EE -1
Proposed Edmonds Retail Development GeologicallGeo(echnical SerVices Report
234'h St. SW @T NIVY99,, Edmonds, Wastinj#on
EXISTING SITE CONDITONS
1,he sub.eet property is shaped like a truncated triangle with the base to the north and the apex to
9
the south. It is bounded on the south by 234h Street SW, on the east by Hwy 99, on the north by
a storage yard and on the west by an apartment complex.
The site slopes gently downward to the east, Most of the grade change occurs on the westem
two-thirds of the site while the area along Hwy 99 is relatively level. Based on hand
measurements only, total elevation change across the site is on the order of 18 feet. The site is
about 2 to 3 feet higher in elevation than the sidewalk along the cast side, No steep slopes exist
within or adjacent to the property other than a 4 to 6 foot berm or slope along the west property
line on the southern portion of the site. Due to very heavy vegetative cover in this area the actual
slope was difficult to observe.
Vegetation on the property consists of a stand of evergreen trees in the northwest portion of the
site, a tow of tall bushes and deciduous trees along the western property line, blackberry bushes
in the northeast portion of the site and field grass with some bramble bushes over the remainder
of the parcel. The lower, eastern portion of the site had been recently mowed.
There was no indication of standing or flowing water on the site at the time of our field work.
No areas of erosion were observed anywhere on the site,
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Explorations
Our field explorations were performed on July 30, 2007. A total of six (0) exploration pits were
excavated to determine subsurface conditions within the property. Due to the small size of the
backhoe provided for the exploration work each of the pits was advanced to depth of 4 to 6 feet
below existing grade. Exploration locations. are shown on the accompanying Site and
Exploration Plan, Figure L
Exploration locations were established by tape measurement and pacing, using available
reference points, and should. be considered accurate only to the degree of the methods employed.
'Records of encountered soil types and conditions were maintained in the field by a licensed
engineering geologist from this office, and are summarized in the accompanying boring logs.
Soil samples obtained in the explorations were visually described by the geologist in the field.
Gary A. Flotvers, PLLC.
19537 IP Avmuc NE Shorcl �ftc, Washington 9815 5-1106 206417-7640
N
Propaved Umonds, Relad Awlopment GeologivallGeotechnical Ser0ces Repdrt
23e.Vt SW @ Hwy99, Edmonds, Washlngjon
Geologic and Soils Mapping
The following geologic and soils mappings were reviewed in our study-,
1) Geologic Map of the Edmonds Fast and Part of the Edmonds West Quadrangles,
WashinSj2.n,_by J.P. Nfinard, 1983, U.S. Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Field
Studies, Map MF- 1541
The Soil SgUe , ish Counly Area, 1983, U.S. Department of
y of Snobom
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Sheet 5 1.
The USGS mapping shows the terrain in the vicinity of the site to be formed over deposits of
Vashon age glacial Vashon age glacial till (Qvt). The SCS mapping shows the vicinity of the site
to fall within the Alderwood—Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes (soil unit 6)
classification. Alderwood series soils form over glacial till parent materials.
Soils encountered in our explorations are generally consistent with the USGS and SCS mappings.
The development site was found to be underlain by dense, poorly stratified glacial drift soils. We
interpret these materials as being the mapped Vashon till. The fill. consists of a poorly sorted
asserrtblage of sands, gravels and cobbles in a dense, grey, fine sand/silt matrix. In native or
slightly modified areas, generally on the lower or eastern portion of the site, our explorations
encountered less weathered, dense or better parent materials at depths of about 2.5 to 3.5 feet. A
zone of weathering has developed in the parent fill materials. The weathered soils take on a
reddish brown color, and are in a loose to medium dense condition. The ave rage thickness of the
looser weathered soils is estimated at about 2.5 feet.
'Filling and/or ground modification were encountered in the northern portion of the site and along
the west boundary area. Indications of filling were recorded in exploration pits EP-3, EP-4, EP-5
and EP-6. Encountered fill depths were relatively minor, ranging from about 1.5 to 4.0 feet. We
also observed an area of very recent filling where a Vactor Truck had recently dumped its load of
fine grained sediment along the nordi property line. Other areas of deeper fills may be
encountered during development of the site. Accurate details of the extent of ground
modification wUl only become apparent at the time of construction of the new development.
Ground Water
No ground water seepage was observed in any of the exploration pits excavated for this. study. In
addition, no indications of standing or flowing water or hydrophilic (water loving) -vegetation
was observed on the site.
During the wetter months of the year it may be possible for an interflow water to accumulate atop
the wiweathered till sediments. Ground water interflow occurs as surface water migrates through
the looser, More permeable weathered zone in the till and perches atop the relatively
Gary A. Flowers, PLLC.
19532 1 P Avcnuc Kr Shoreline, Washington 98155-1106 206417-7640
PrqposedE&nomds Retail Developluent qeologicallGeolechnical,5ereice�v Report
234'4 St. SW @ Hi4y99. Edmondv, ftshivton
impermeable dense parent material. Depending on the slope of the ground surface (and interface
contact) within an area, the collected ground water may rernain stationary, or migrate down
gradient along the top of the dense parent till surface. Interflow is most active in the winter
months or during periods of prolonged, rainfall. During these times, infiltration of perched
ground water into sandy seams orpockets, in. the dense parent material may also occur. This type
of activity is considered to belocalized and is not an indication of a larger (regional) recharge
condition. Interflow tends to be seasonal and the level of activity generally decreases
significantly (or disappears) during the dry summer months.
CRIMICAL AREAS
Geologicafly Hazardous Areas
Erosion Hazards
As per EMC 23.80.020 erosion hazard are&s are at least those areas identified by the U.S.
Department of Agriculture's Natural Resources Conservation Service as having a "moderate to
severe," "severe," or "very severe" rill and inter -rill erosion hazard. Erosion hazard areas are also
those areas impacted by shore land and/or stream bank erosion.Within the city of Edmonds
erosion hazard areas include:
1. Those areas of the city of Edmonds containing soils that may experience severe to very severe
erosion hazard. Ws group of soils includes, but is not limited to, the following when they occur
on slopes of 15 percent or greater:
a, Alderwood soils (15 to 25 percent slopes);
b. Alderwood/Everett series (25 to 70 percent slopes);
c. Everett series (15 to 25 percent slopes);
2. Any area with. slopes of 15 percent or greater and impermeable soils interbedded with granular
soils and springs or groundwater seepage; and
3. Arm with significant visible evidence of ground water seepage, and which also include
existing landslide deposits regardless of slope.
As discussed in the Geologic and Soils.Mapping section above, the site is mapped as Aldcrwood
—Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes. Based on our exploration findings, observation of
open excavations on the adjacent property and site topography, we are of the opinion that this
classification is appropriate. Water erosion hazard.for these soils is listed as moderate in the, SCS
unit definitions. Therefore, the site does not meet the definition provided in the EMC for an
Gary A. Flowers, PLLC.
195j21P Avaue NE shorefilic washI1101011 981 Si- 11% 2D6417-7640
Proposed. Edmonds Retail Development GeologicallGeotechnicat &ivicw Repbrt
BeSt. SW(4oj Hwy99, Edmonds, Washington
erosion hazard area. As such, and with the limited area of sloping ground andthe level area
along l4my 99, standard erosion control practices will be suitable for this site.
Landsfi* Hazard Areas7
Landslide hazard areas in Snohomish. County are typically defined as; 1.) areas of historic
landsliding, and areas subject to undercutting by streams, rivers or waves, 2) areas with slopes
steeper than 15% which intersect geologic contacts with a relatively penneable sediment
overlying a relatively impermeable sediment, and which contain springs or ground water seeps,
and 3) areas located in canyon or an active alluvial fan, susceptible to inundation by debris flows
or catastrophic flooding.
Our field measurements indicate that surface grades on this parcel are generally less than 15%.
No ground water seepage or geologic contacts were observed with the exploration pits or during
reconnaissance of the site. Considering the gentle site grades and dense or better glacial till
underlying the development area, it is our opinion that this property is not at risk from
landsliding.
&isnlic Bazar&
Earthquakes occur in the Puget Lowland with great regularity. The vast majorities of these
events are small and are usually not felt by people. l4owever, large earthquakes do occur as
evidenced by the 1949, 7.2-magnitude event, the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event, and the February
2001 magnitude 6.8 Nis-qually earthquake. The '1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest
in this region during recorded history and was centered in the Olympia area.
Generally, there are -four types of potential geologic hazards associated with large seismic events.
These include: 1) surficial ground rupture; 2) scismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction; and
4) ground motion. The potential for each of these to impact the site is discussed below.
The nearest known fault is the Sound Whidbey Island Fault Zone. This fault zone consists of
rriultiple splays located to the north of the site. The exact locations of the fault s lays are
p 3
unknown but are likely several miles to the north. The South Whidbey Island Fault Zone and
other nearby faults are being currently studied by the United States Geological Service (USGS)
and have been determined to be active and capable of producing large earthquakes. Much is still
to be learned about these fault systems but it is generally hypothesized that their recurrence
interval is several thousand years. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval, the potential for
surficial ground rupture is considered to be low during the expected life of the proposed
development.
Gary A. FloweM PLLC.
19532 1 P Avenue NE Shordine� Washington 98155-1106 206-417-7640
5
Proposed Edmonds Retail Development GeologictillGeotechniccil.Tervices Report
�3e St. SW @,,M09, Edmonds, Wavhiaghon
Due to the lack of slopes and the dense nature of the underlying glacial till materials, it is our
opinion that there is no risk of darnage to the proposed development, by seismically induced
landsliding on this site.
Based on the sediments encountered in our explorations, it is our opinion that the risk of
J�quefaction is negligible.
In accordance with the 2003 International Building Code, Table 1615. 1. 1, the site soils within the
development area fall within the "Site Class C" designation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basis of out geologic research and field explorations, the existing glacial deposits will
provide excellent support for the proposed retail structures and associated driveways and parking
areas. For foundations or paved areas to be placed on the weathered portion of the glacial till
sedimenM the soils must be recompacted to a dense, nonyielding condition prior to concrete or
roadway fill placement. For foundations placed on the unweathered, very dense, glacial till, the
soils must be undisturbed. No structures should be placed on the encountered fill soils. The on -
site soils are very moisture. sensitive and should not be worked during inclement weather. If
these soils become over optimum in their moisture content, they will be easily disturbed and
additional excavation may be necessary to teach bearing soils. If the soils are too dry at the time
of construction, it will be difficult to add water and obtain consistent moisture content
throughout. Therefore, the owner/contractor should be prepared to provide import granular
material, as needed, for structural backfill on the project during wet weather construction or
following extended periods of dry weather.
A perched interflow water zone may occur on the site during extended periods of inclement
weather. Although no ground water was observed in our exploration pits, interflow is typically
seasonal and will likely reduce significantly, or dry up, during the drier seasons of the year.
During wet weather periods the contractor should be prepared to deal with the interflow, as
necessary.
Site Grading
Site grading plans were not provided prior to completion of this report. However, due to the
relative gentle grade on the site, and the intention on the part of the client to work with the
existing grade, we anticipate that grading will be limited. The site should be cleared of all
vegetation, topsoil and existing fill soils that are not required as part of the landscape plan.
These materials should be removed from. the site or stored for future landscape use.
Gary A. FloweM PLLC
19532 12" Amue NP Shorclirw, Washington 98155-) 1 D6 206417-7640
6
�Psed Ednionds Retail Development GeologicallGeorechnical Services Report
St. SW ge /Avy99, Edmonds, Washington
If structural fill is necessary for site development it must be compacted to a dense, nonyielding
condition. Structural fill. is defined as non -organic soil, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts
with each lift being compacted to at least 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum density
using ASTM:D 15 57 as the standard.
In the case of roadway and utility tTench backfill, the structural fill should be placed and
compacted in accordance with, current local or county codes and standards. ne top of all
compacted fill should extend horizontally outward a minimum distance of 3 feet beyond the,
location of perimeter footings or pavement edges before sloping down at a maximum angle of
2H:IV. Structural fill placed in foundation excavations must extend a minimum distance of 2
feet beyond the edges of the footings.
Depending upon final grading design, it appears that the pavements for this project will be
supported by loose to medium dense, silty sand with some gravel (weathered glacial till) or
structural fill soils atop these soils. These soils will require recompaction to a, dense, unyielding
condition prior to placement of any concrete, pavement orstructural fill. Due to the fine grained
nature of the on -site soils, they will be subject to disturbance when above optimum moisture
content If the subgrade soils become unstable they will require further excavation to competent
soils or moisture conditioning and compaction prior to installation of the pavement section.
All structural fill less than 4 feet below finished grade for the planned driveways and parking
areas should be compacted to 95 percent of the modified Proctor maximum dry density as
determined by ASTM:D 1557. Prior to placement of pavement base course materials over
natural subgrades, the area should be proof -rolled under the observation of a representative of
this firm with a loaded dump truck or other suitable equipment to identify any soft, or yielding
areas. Any soft or yielding areas should be removed and replaced with granular structural fill
prior to continuing work. All areas to be paved should be crowned to direct storm water flow to
the outside edge of the roadway.
Temporary Excavations
The appropriate slope configuration for excavation of soils depends on many factors including
the presence and abundance of ground water, the type and density or consistency of the soils, the
depth of cut, surcharge loadings (eg., from adJjacent structures, stock piles. construction
equipment, etc.), and the length of time over which the excavation is left open.
Construction slope angles.required for stability and safety depend on a careful evaluation of all of
the above factors. Because of the many variables involved, the actual slope values required for
stability in open cuts can only be approximated prior to construction. At this site, we anticipate
that excavation cuts will encounter loose to medium dense modified ground and weathered
native soils, and underlying dense or better glacially consolidated parent soils. In our opin ion,
t I emporary cuts of 0.5H to I V (horizontal to vertical), of up to 6 to 8 feet in the dense or better
Gary A. Flowers, PLLC
19532 1? Avenue NE Shonline. Washington 98133-1106 206-417-7640
Propmed Edmonds Retail Development GeologicallGeolechnicalVervices RVOIrt
2340 SL SW @ HuYK FdM
glacial soils, and IH to IV cuts in, the overlying medium dense weathered glacial soils could be
used for planning purposes. Any loose materials should be laid back to a 1.5B to IV slope.
Some adjustments to these values are possible, but should be based on site observations by this
office during construction. Actual sloping and maintenance of excavations during construction
should be made the responsibility of the contractor, as he is continuously present at the site to
observe the nature and condition of the excavation soils. Regardless of the construction method
used for excavations, the contractor should be aware and becorne familiar with applicable local,
�tate and federal safety regulations, including O.S.H.A. excavation and trench safety standards.
Construction site safety and code compliance is generally the sole responsibility of the
contractor.
As is typical with earthwork operations, some sloughing and raveling may occur and cut slopes
may have to be adjusted in the field. It may be necessary to cover the sides of temporary slopes
with plastic or otherwise protect them from the elements to minimize sloughing and erosion. As
ground water is encountered, the temporary slopes should be adjusted to a shallower gradient.
Permanent, unsupported cut or structural fill slopes should not exceed a gradient of 2B:IV.
Permanent, non-structural fill slopes should not exceed a gradient of 41+1V.
Foundation Recommendations
We are of the opinion that the medium dense or better native glacial till and/or glacial drift soils,
or structural fill placed over these materials, will provide a commonly acceptable level of support
for building and wall foundations. A net allowable design soil bearing pressure of 2,500 psf may
be used in design for footings set into appropriately compacted, weathered native site soils,
unweathered and undisturbed glacial till soils or approved structural fill placed over these
materials. For short term dynamic loads, a reduction orf the factor of safety would be appropriate
at this site, and a resultant increase of one-third for the above bearing pressures may be used.
Higher allowable bearing pressures will be appropriate for any foundation that is set to bear
entirely upon undisturbed glacial till soils. Should there be a need for higher bearing pressures,
such as for certain column loads, we should be contacted to discuss options with the struct=1
engineer.
Perimeter footings for the proposed structures should be buried a minimum of 18 inches into the
surrounding soil for ftost protection. Settlement of footings placed as detailed herein should be
less than I" total, and Vz" differential over a 20 foot span between comparably loaded footings.
However, foundations placed on unapproved fill or disturbed soil may result in increased
settlement. All foundation excavations should be inspected by a representative of this firm, prior
to re -steel and concrete placement, to verify that, the design bearing capacity of the soils has been
attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this report.
Gury A. Flowers, PLLC
19532 IP Avenuc NE Shwlinc, Wfishingtim 98155-1106 206417-7640
Retail Developmetil GeologicallGeatechnicalVervices RePOrt
ts, Washington
LaterM loads may be resisted by friction at the base of the footings andfloor slab mid as passive
pressure on the sides of f6otings. We recommend that an allowable coefficient of friction of 0.40
be used to calculate friction between the concrete and the underlying soil. Passive pressure. may
be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 250 pef. These values are allowable
and include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
It should be noted that the area bounded by lines "tending downward at 1H: IV from any footing
must not intersect another footing or wall, or intersect a filled area which has not been compacted
to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.51-1:1 V line extending down. and away
from ianyfooling must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eventually undermine the
footing. Thus, footings should not be placed near the edge of steps or cuts in the bearing soils or
close to retaining walls unless the walls are designed for the additional surcharge load.
Retaining Walls
Retaining walls that are free to rotate may be designed.fbr an active equivalent fluid pressure of
35 pef with level backfill or 55 pcf with sloping backfill. If the walls arc restrained and unable to
rotate they should be designed for an at rest pressure of 50 pcf for level. backfill and 70 pef with
sloping backfill. Loads from traffic, equipment or surcharges from adjacent structures should be
added to these values by the design engineer.
Resistance to lateral loads will be as provided in the Foundations Recommendations section of
this report. All structural retaining walls or landscape walls taller than 3 feet must be lined with
a minimum of 12 inches of washed rock along their back sides to within I foot of finish grade, or
by . an approved drainage mat such a MiraDrain or IncaDrain. The washed rock or drainage mat
must hydraulically connect to the footing drain.
We are unaware at this time of any mechanically stdbili7xd earth retaining walls planned- for the
site. If arty such walls are planned that are over 4 feet in height� we should be contacted to
evaluate the walls and provide a suitable design.
Floor Support Recommendations
Slab -on -grade concrete floors, may be placed over firm non -yielding native subgrades or atop
structural fill. Any material that has been disturbed and is not dense and unyielding should either
be recompacted or removed and replaced with structural fill.
A capillary break layer consisting of 4 inches of washed pea gravel or other clean, washed,
granular material, aiid a heavy duty (minimum 10 mil), polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should
be provided under any floor slabs where moisture intrusion is a concern. If the vapor barnier
becomes compromised in. arly way during construction it should be replaced or an additional
layer added, Penetrations through the vapor barrier should be wrapped and taped.
Gary A. Flowers, PLLC.
19532 1 P Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 98155-1106 206417-7640
9
PmposedEdmon& Retail Devel9pment GeologicallGeatechnical Services Report
234'* St SW @ H-�09,_ -Edmondy, !Eashington
Site Drainage.
All storm water runoff from impervious surfaces should be collected and piped into an approved
storm water drainage system. All perimeter footing walls and retaining walls should beprovided
with a drain at the footing level. Drains should consist of rigid, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded
by washed pea gravel. The pipes should always be placed such that the perforations are located
on the lower one-third of the pipe section. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set
no higher than the bottom of the footing and the drains should be constructed with sufficient
gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the buildings. Roof and surface runoff should not
discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightfirle drain
that discharges into an approved %torm water conveyance system. In planning, exterior grades
adjacent to walls should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface
drainage.
Erosion Protection
The natural on�site soils contain a significant amount of fines and are considered to be moisture
sensitive. We anticipate That these materials, when disturbed, will be vulnerable to erosion from
both sheet flow and channelized flow. However, due to the gentle site. gradient the erosion
potential should be addressed by standard erosion control methodology. The plan should
include, at a minimum, placement of silt fences along the lower reaches of the property. The silt
-fences should be placed as per local muriicipal specifications, and be properly maintained. Soil
stockpiles should be covered with plastic sheeting during periods of inclement weather. During
rainy weather, areas stripped of vegetation and exposed backfill should be covered with plastic or
a minimum of 2 inches of straw mulch when not being worked. The construction entrance
should be rocked to minim�ize off -site Soil transport.
SUMMARY
Based on our site reconnaissance and subsurface explorations, we are of the opinion that the
subject site is suitable for the. proposed development provided the recommendations presented
herein are properly implemented.
We recommend that we be retained to provide construction monitoring and consultation services
to verify that subsurface conditions are as expected and that construction conforms to the
recommendations in this report and the project plans and specifications. Should conditions be
revealed during construction that differs from the anticipated subsurface profile, �ve would be
able to evaluate those changed conditions, and provide alternative recommendations where
appropriaie.
(.7ary A. Flowers, PLLC_
19532 121b Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 9815$-1106 206417-7640
10
Proposed on& Retail Development GeologicallGeotechnical Semices Report
234"' A SW , Hwy99, Edmonds, Washinglon
Our findings and recommendations provided in this report were prepared in accordance with
generally accepted principles of engineering geology and geotechnical engineering as practiced in
the Puget Sound area at the time this report was submitted. We make no other warranty, either
express or implied.
Sincerely,
Gary A. Flowers, P.G., P.E.G.
Engineering Geologist
Attachments: Figure 1: Site and Exploration Plan
Appendix A —Exploration Pit Logs
Robert M. Pride, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
Gary A. Flower& PLLC.
19532 126 Avenue NE shmline, wwhington 98155-1106 206417-7640
vl��
.4 14-
'P6
tow
A,
ME
Lay
Z:�
LUALANG 51,
EP-4
FFF', 412
RETAIL 8
4,177S,f,
HE 413 U JzLi 1.
AutoZone
7n? 7,369 sli
f
EP-3
ul
EP-2
EP-5
LEGEND
EP-1 a Appro)dmate lor-ition of expitomfion pR
KtMKk:ftlUt: f MIMS I nOMPSOn. AL-- alzqful
FGARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC
Ott
J RETAK A
4,970 Sf
FE 4--
EP I
N
0 A 30
. SCALE IN FEET
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE 1
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE 9/07
HIGHWAY 99 AT 234TH STREET SW
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO. 07-016
Edm Retail Development GeologkatlGeofechnical Services Repart
23 'St. SW @ 9, Ethnondvi Washington
A
EP-1
0.0'— 0.3' sod/topsoil
OX-3.5' medium dense, damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 6" diameter (weathered
native)
3.5'-4.0' dense, damp, gray, silty SAND with gravel (glacial till)
BIOH @ 4.0' No caving No ground water
EP-2
0.0'— OR sodAopsoiI
0.6'-2.6' medium dense, damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 6" diameter (weathered
native)
3.5'4.0' dense, damp, gray, silty SAND with gravel (glacial till)
BOH @, 4.0' No caving No ground water
EP-3
0.01-1.51 loose, brown, silty SAND with gravel and minor debris (fill)
1.5'-2.6' medium dense,, damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel. to 6" diameter (weathered
native)
2.6'-4.0' dense, darnp, gray, silty SAND with gravel (glacial till)
BOH @ 4.0' No caving No ground water
EP-4
O.W— 0.7' forrest duff
0.7'- IT medium dense, dry to damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 8" diameter and
minor debris (fill)
3.7'-4.0' medium dense, black, fine, sandy SILT with organic$ (telic topsoil layer)
4.01-6.01 medium dense, damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 6" diameter (weathered
native)
BOH, @ 6.0' No caving No groundwater
Gary A. Flowers, PLLC.
19532 120 Avenue NE Shomlinc, Washington 9X15S-1106 206-417-7640
12
Proposed Unrondi Retail Developmetit GeologicallGeotechisical Services Rep&rt
234'h St. SW (a) lhvy9�, Edmond% Washinglon
EM
0.0"— 3.0' loose, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 8 inch diameter and minor debris (fill)
3.0'-5.0' mediurn dense, damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 6" diameter (weathered
native)
BOH @ 5.0' No caving No ground water
EP-6
0.0'— 3.0' loose, brown, silty SAND with gravel. and minor debris (fill)
3.0'-5.0' medium dense, damp, brown, silty SAND with gravel to 6" diameter (weathered
native)
BOH @ 5.0' No caving No ground water
Gary A. Ftowers, PLIk.
19532 121h Me= NE S11wdinc, wasbington 98155-1106 206-417-7640
13
ED M 07-91
EDM 7-92
FM
October 1111 2007
Project No.. 07-076
Mr. Patiick , Morris
MoiDevCo, LLC
P.O' * Box 60152
Seattle, Washington 98160-0152
WAry A. Flowers, PLLC
Geological & Geotechnical Consulting
'19532,120 �kvenue NIE.
fShoreline, WA 98155-1106
RIECE H ED
5iH I
EECE
S, ubj ect: Subsurface Explorationand Geotei,76ical',En
gineeringReport
Edmondi Commercial Development
NW Quadrant of 234h StSW & Hwy 99
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Morris:
We; have completed subsurface explorations and geologic/geotechnical engineering evaluations
at the "Edmonds Commercial Developmenf'-project site at the above noted location in Edmonds,
Washington. This report, summarizes our 'findings, and presents information regarding -
subsurface conditions and geotechnical' engineering design recommendations for planning"and
design of this project.
The project site is located on the west side of Hwy,99 (Aurora Ave N) just north of 2134h Street
SW in the southeast portion of the town of Edmonds. Development plans indicate that,three,
retail buildings will be constructed on, the site in the approximate locations shown on figure 1,
Si I te and,Exploration Plan. Associated: parking lots :and drive,,Aay will also be constructed as
shown. We understand that, at, present-, site grading details have not been finalized. However,
preliminary' plans indicate that only, minor grading will be required to accommodate building
sites, roads, and storm detention and, utility construction.
The purpose of out site evaluation was to characterize shallow soil and ground water conditions
on. the property,, and to, provide geotechnical. engineering design recommendations for planning
and construction of the pro' sed development. The scope of our workincluded;
po
,,j LW . I f
0'
""'e4;e
provided development plans, 2) research of geologic and il ation .1 o "r fi -s�
3) exploration of site soils conditions using small, client P:ov ed, baC ologic
a 0
and geotechnical engineering evaluations, and 4) prepawn i n of thi 0 field
explorations were conducted on July 30, 2007. LODEN rm
Gary A. Rowers, PLLC.
19532 1 P Avenue NE Shoreline, Washington 99155-1106 206-417-7640
RECENVE
DEC 17 2007
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF EDMONDS
Pr, up, osed Edmonds.Relail Development GeologicallGeotechnical Services Report
23,0; St 4'@ Mt,
y99, Edmonds, Washington
EXISTING SITE CONMITONS
The � subject property is shaped like a truncated triangle with the base to the north and the apex to
the §outh..-It is bounded on the south by 2346'Street SW, on the east by Hwy 99, on the north by
a storage yard�and on the west by an apartment complex.
The, site slope& gently downward to the east. Most of the grade changeoccurs o I n the western
two-thirds of the site while the area along Hwy .99 is relatively level. Based on - han,d
measurements, only, total elevation change across the site is on the. order of 18 feet. 'The site, is
about 2 to 3 feet higher in- elevation than the sidewalk along the east side. No steep slopes exist
within or adjacent to the property other than. a. 4 to 6 foot berm or slope along the west property
line -on the southern portion of the site. Due to very heavy vegetative cover in this area the actual
slope was difficult to observe.
Vegetation, on the proper . ty consists of a stand ofevermen trees in the northwest portion of the,
site,! a.row of tall bushes and deciduous -trees alon g- the we;;stern property line, blackberry bushe&
in the northeast, portion of the site and field grass with some bramble bushes over the remainder
of the parcel. The lower, eastern portion of the site had been recently mowed.
There was no indication of 'standing or flowing water on the site at -the time of our field work.
No areas of erosion, were observed anywhere, on the site.
SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS
Explorations
Our field explorations were performed on July �O., 2007, A total of six (6) exploration pits were,
excavated to determine subsurface conditions within the property. Due to the small size -of the
backhoe provided for the exploration work each of the pits was advanced to d epth of 4 to 6 feet
below existing grade. Exploration locations are shown on 'the accompanying Site and
Exploration Plan, Figure 1.
Exploration locations were established, by tape measurement and pacing, using available.
reference points, and should be considered accurate only to the degree of the methods employed.
Records of encountered. soil types and conditions were maintained in the field by a licensed
engineering geologist from this office, and, are summarized in the accompanying�boring logs.
Soil samples obtained in the explorations we'revisually described by the geologist in the field..
Geologic and Soils Mapping
T ' f
he ollowingge-ologic and soils mappings were reviewed in out study;
Gary,�_ Flowerms, PL
19532, IP,Avcnuc NE Shomfinc. Washington 98155A 106 .206A 17-7,640
2
Proposed Umonds Retail Duvelopment GcologicallGeotechnical Services Report
23e,Sf. SWfaD HuyO, Edmonds, ff"ayhington
gum
1)
2)
washinjgon, by J.-P. Minard, 1983, U.S. Geologic Survey Miscellaneous Field
Studies, Map MF-I 541
The. Soil SMLM of, Snohomish County Area bj� 1, 983, U.S. Department of'
Wg�L
Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service, Sheet 5 1.
The USGS mapping shows the terrain in the vi cinity of the site, to befornied over. deposits of
Vashon age glacial Vashon age glacial fill (Qvt). The SCS mapping shows the vicinity of the site
to fall within the Alderwood—Urban land complex, 8 to 15 percent slopes (soil unit 6)
classification. Alderwo.o.d series soils form overglacial till parent materials.
Soils encountered in our explorations are generally consistent with the'USGS and, SCS mappings.
The'development site was found to be underlain by dense, poorly stratified glacial drift soils. We
interpret these materials as being, the mapped Vashon till. The till consists of a poorly sorted
asseniblage of sands, gravels and cobbles. in a dense, grey, fine sand/silt matrix.. In native or
slightly -modified areas, generally on the lower or eastern portion of the site,. our. explorations
encountered less weathered, dense ' or better parent materials at depths of about 21.5 to 3.5 feet. A
zone of weathering has 'developed in the, parent till materials. 'Me weathered soils take,',on.a
reddish brown color, and are in� a loose to medium dense condition. The avera'ge'thickness of the
looser weathered soils is estimated at about, 25 feet.
Filling and/or ground, modification were encounteredin the, northern portion of the site and along
the west boundary area, Indications of fillm*gwere recorded in exploration pits EP-3, EP4, EM
and EP-6. Encountered fill depths were relatively minor, ranging f5rom. about 1 .5 to 4.0 feet We
also observed an area of very recent filling where a Vactor Truck had recently dumped its- load of
fine grained sediment along the�north property line. Other areas of deeper fills may be
encountered during development of the site. Accurate details of the extent' of . ground
modification will only become apparent at the time of construction of the new development.
Grottnd Water
No ground water seepage was observed in any of the exploration pits excavated for this study. In
addition, no indications of standing or flowing water or hydrophilic (waterloving) vegetation
was:observed on the site.
During the wetter months of the year it may be possible for an interflow water to accumulate atop
the unweathered till sediments. Ground water interflow occurs as surface water migrates through
the : looser, more permeable weathered I zone in the till and perches atop the relatively
impermeable dense parent material., Depending onthe slope of the ground surfke (and interface
contact) within an area, the -collected ground water may remain stationary, or migrate down
gradient along the top of the den�e parent till surface. Interflow is most active in the winter
Gary.A. Ftowers, PLLC
19532 12" Awnue NE Sbordinc,'WaAington 98155-1106 2,06-417-7640
Proposed E&nonds Retail Deveiopment GeologicallGeotechnical Services Report
23e�StSW@HuT99,,�dmonds, lVashingtOn
moriths or during periods of prolonged rainfall. 'During these times., infiltration of perched
groundvNzter into sandy seams or pockets in the dense parent material may also occur. This type
of activity is considered to be localized and, is not an indicafion of a larger (regional) recharge,
condition. Interflow tends to be. seasonal and the level of activity generally decreases
sign . ificantly (or disappears) during the dry.summer months.
CRITICAL AREAS
Ge�logically Hazardous Areas
Erosion Hazards
As,discussed above'..,the site is mapped as Alderwood —Urban land complex., 8 to 15 percent
slopes. Based on our , explorat ion findings and observatio . nof open excavations on the adjacent
property, we are of the opiniori that this classification I is appropriate. Water erosion'hazard for
these soils is listed as moderat6 in the SCS- unit definitions. When disturbed during construction.
the.hazard of erosion for these soils will. be severe. However, due to the limited area of slope and
the level area along,Hwy 99, standard erosion controlpr6ctices will be suitable for this site.
Landslide Hazard Areas
Landslide hazard: areas in Snohomish County are typically defined as,; 1) areas, of historic
landsliding, and areas subject to undercutting by streams, rivers or waves, 2),areas with slopes
steeper than 15% which intersect geologic contacts with a relatively permeable sediment
overlying a relatively impermeable sediment,- and whichcontain springs or ground. water seeps,
and 3) areas located in canyon or an active alluvial fan, susceptible to inundation by debris flows
or catastrophic flooding.
Our field measurements indicate that surface grades on this parcel are generally less than -15%.
No ground water seepage or geologic contacts were observed with the exploration pits or during
r
econnaissance of the site. Considering the gentle, site grades and dense or better glacial,till
underlying the.: developtnent area, it is, our opinion 'that this property is not at risk- from
landsliding.
Seismic Hazards
Eart I hquakes occur in -the Puget Lowland with, great regularity. The vast majorities of these
events are 1 small andare usually not felt, by people. However, large earthquakes do occur. as
evidenced by the 1949, 7,.2-magnitude, � event, the 1965, 6.5-magnitude event, and the February
2001 magnitude 6.8 Nisqually earthquake, The 1949 earthquake appears to have been the largest.
in this region during recorded histo�y and was centered in the Olympia area.
Giry A. Flowers, PL(.C— -
1,9113�7'le Avenuc NE s: lin" , W%hingwn 98 1155-.1106 2D6-417-7640
P�.oposrv4.&dmonds Retail Dc�velqpmenf GeologicdIlGeoiechnical Smices Report
I . I I I I
23e&,��w 99, Edmonds, Washington
:Generally, there'are four type's of potential geologic hazards associatedwith large seismic events
These includc- 1) surficial groundrupture- 2) seismically induced landslides; 3) liquefaction;"and
4) ground motion. The potential forekh of these to imp I act thc,lsite is, discussed below.
. -The, neafest'known, fault is,the, Sound, Whidbey Island Fault Zone. This, fault zone consists of
a ons- of the, fault 'lay
multiple Ways located, -to,,,the north of the'site. nm& exact, lo ti sp s are,
unknown but,are likely se I veral'miles, to1he north. The, South Whidbey Island, Fault, Zone and.
other nearby faults arebeing currently studied by the'United States Geological Service (USGS)�
and have been determined -to be. active'and cavable of producing large earthquakes. Much is stiff,
to be learned about these "fiultl sysiemsbut �,it is generally hypothesized that their recurrence..
interval ,is several I thousand'yea,rs. Due to the suspected long recurrence interval, the potential for'
Iciat �ground rupture i s, considered to be low during the expecte.d.jife of Ahe proposed
Aevelopment
IJ to the lack of s0opes �and the dense'. nature of the underlying glacialfill materials, itis 011r"
that there is no risk of damage, to the proposed development� by seismically induced
landsliding on thissiW.
Based on the" s6dih I ients encounte I red -in our explorations, it is, our o . p . inion'thid., the, risk 6f
liquefaction is negligible.
In accordance with1he 2003 International guildin th
g Code, Table 1615.1.1, the site soi s wi in e
.development area,fall within the "� Site, Class C" designation.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
On the basisof 'our, . 'geologic research, Afid'field explorations, the existing glacial deposits'Will.'
provide expelleptsu o ' for the proposed, retail, structures and associated driveways and parkin&
Pp rt
'''be placed on the weathered'portion-,of the glacial, till,
areas. Foifibundations or paved areas to-
sediments,,the'soils mu§t'be reeompactedt6,a dense,,' nonyielding condition prior to concrete or-,
r6admiay fill placement. For foundati.ons'plalced on the unweathered, very dense, glacial till, the
soils must be undisturbe& No structures should be placed on the encountered fill soil& The on-
site;soils are yery moisture'sensitive'a,nd; should not1be worked during inclement weather. If
thes : e soils become over, optimum in their moisturecon I t I ent, they willbe easily d'isiurbe&and
additional excavation may be necessary'.to,reach beating soils., If the soils are too dry at the, -time,
of construction, it will- be difficult to. add water I and obtain I 'consistent moisture content
throughout. . Therefore the owner/contractor should, be prepared to provide � import granular
material, as needed, for structural. backfill � on, the i ject during wei� weather construction -or
proi
following extended periods of dr�,r weather.
Giry A. Flowers" PLLC
19532 1PAVenueNE shwtjine,'Woswngton�98155-1106: 2064174640
5
Proposed..F-dm�7ndsRelo.ilDevelopmenI GeologicallGeotechnkal Servica Report
234(h,S1. SWO) H%yW, I E&no."A Washingjon
A perched interflow water zone may occur on.the site.during extended periods of inclement
weather. Although no ground water was observed in our exploration pits, interflow is. typically
seasonal and will likely reduce significantly, or dry up, during the drier seasons of the year.
During wet weather periods the contractor should be prepared to deal with. the interflow.'as
necessary.
Site Grading
Site, grading plansmere not provided prior to completion of this reporL 'How -ever, due to the
relaiive gentle grade on the site, and the� intention on the, part of the client to work with the
existing grade, we anticipate that grading will be limited. The site sho r uld be cleared of all
vege.tation topsoil and existing fill soils that are, not required as part, of the landscape plan.
Thesematerial s should be removed from the site or, stored for future landscape, use.
If structural fill is necessary farsite development it must be compacted to a dense, nonyielding
condition. . Structural fill is defined as non -organic. soil, placed in maximum 8-inch loose lifts
with each lift being compacted to at least 95 . percent of th6.modified, Proctor maximum density
,!using ASTM.:D. 1557 as the standard,
In the case of roadway and 'utility trench backfilll the structural fill should be placed and
com, pacted in . accordance with current,local or county codes and standards. The top of alL
compacted fill should extend 'horizontally outward a minimum distance of * 3 feet beyond the
lookion of perimeter footings or,pavemerit edges before sloping down at� amaximurn angle of
2H: ' IV. Structural fill placed in foundation excavations must extend a minimum distance of'2
feet beyond the edges of the f6otings.
Depending upon final grading design, it appears -that the pavements for this project Will be
supported by loose to medium dense,,silty sand with sorne.gravel (weathered glacial till) or
structural fill soils atop these soils. These soils will require recompaction to a dense, unyielding
condition prior to placementof any concrete, pavement or structural fill. Due to the fine grained
nature of the on -site soils, they will, be. subject to disturbance when above optimum moisture
content. If the -subgrade soils become unstable they will require further excavation to competent
soils or moisture conditioning and compaction prior to installation of the pavement section.
All structural fill less than 4 feet below finished grade for the planned driveways and parking
areas should be compacted to 95 percent of,the modified Proctor maximum, dry density as
determined by ASTAD 1557. Prior to placement of pavement base course materials over
natural subgrades, the area should. be proof -rolled under, the observation of a representative of
this� firm, with a loaded dump truck or other' suitable'equipriient to identify any soft or yielding
areas. Any soft or yielding areas should be removed -and replaced with granular structural fill
prior to continuing work. All areas'to be paved,sbould'be crowned to direct storm water flow to
the outside:edge of the roadway.,
CM A. F1Qwers,.PLLC.
19532 126 Awnut NE Shoirfine, Washinjt6n 98155-11106 206-417-7640
6 �,
Proposed F
datonds Retail Development deologicallGeatechnicat Services Report
23,�'M. SW@ H%y99, Edmonds, Washington
Temporary Excavations
The appropriate slope configuration for excavation of soils depends on many factors including
the presence and abundance of ground water, the type and density or consistency of the soils, the
depth of cut, surcharge loadings (e.g., from adjacent structures, stock piles, construction
equipment, etc.),.and the length of time over which the excavation is left open.
Constructionslope ahgli:s requircd,for . stability and safety depend on a careful evaluation of a of
the above factors. Because of the manyvariables involved, the actual slope values required for
stability in open cuts can only be approximated prior to construction. At this site, we anticipate,
that excavation cuts will encounter I look to medium dense modified ground and weathered
native soils, and underlying dense or better glacially consolidated parent soils. In our opinion,
temporary cuts of 0.5H to IN (horizontal to -vertical), of up. to 6 to 8 feet in the de#se'or better
glacial soils, and IH to IV cuts in the overlying medium -dense weatheredglaciiI soils, could be
used for planning purposes. Any1oo'se materials should be laid back to a 1.5kip IV slope.
Some adjustments to these values are possible, but should be based on site observations by this
office during construction. Actual sloping and maintenance of excavations during construction
should be made the responsibility of the contractor, as he is continuously present at the site to
.o.bserve the nature and condition of the -excavation soils. Regardlessof the construction method
used for excavations, the contractor should be aware and become familiar with applicable local,
state and federal safety regulations,'including O.S.H.k excavation and trench safety standards.
Construction site safety and code compliance is generally the sole responsibility of the
contractor.
As is typical with earthwork -operations, some.sloughing and raveling may occur and cut, slopes
may have to be adjusted in the field. It may be necessary to cover the sides of temporary slopes
with plastic or otherwise, protect them froin'the ' elements to minimize sloughing and erosion. As,
ground water is encountered, the temporary slopes should be adjusted to a shallower gradient.
Permanent, unsupported cut or structural fill slopes should not exceed. a gradient of 2H. IV.
Permanent, non-structural fil I slopes,should not exceed a gradient of 4H: IV.
Foundation Recommendations
We are of the opinion that the me.chum dense or better native glacial till and/or glacial drift, soils,
or structural fill placed over these materials, will provide a commonly acceptable level of support
for building and wall foundations. A net allowable design soil bearing pressure of 1,500 psf may
be used in design for footings set into appropriately compacted, weathered native site soils,
unweathered and undisturbed glacial till soils or approved structural fill placed over these
materials. For short term dynamic loads, a reduction of the factor of safety would be appropriate
at this site, and a resultant increase of one-third,for the above bearing pressures may be use&
Gary A. Flowers, PLLC
19532 12'h Awnuo NE ShoreJ*� Washitigton 09155-1106 20"17-7640
7
Proposed FAtonds Retail Developpient GeologicakGeotechnicaI Services Report
234'6 St. SW @ ffisyO, Edmonds, Washington
Higher allo-w-able bearing pressures will 'be appropriate for any foundation that is set, to bear
entirelyupon undisturbed glacial till soils. Should there be a need for higher bearing pressures,
such as for certain column loads, we should be contacted to discuss options with the structural
engineer.
Perimeter footings for the proposed structures should be buried a minimum of 18 inches into the
surrounding soil for frost protection. Settlement of footingsplaced as detailed herein �hould'bi
less- than I" total and 1/2" differential over a 20,foot span between comparably loaded footings.
However. foundations placed on unapproved fill or disturbed soil may result in increased
settlement. All foundation excavations should be inspected by a representative of this firm, prior
to re -steel and concrete- placement to verify that the design bearing capacity of the soils has been
attained and that construction conforms to the recommendations contained in this report.
Lateral loads may be resisted by ffiction at the' base of the footings and floor slab andas passive
pressure on the sides of footings. Wercoommend that an allowable,coefficient of friction of 0.40
be used to calculate friction between the concrete -and the underlying soil. Passive pressure may
be determined using an allowable equivalent fluid density of 250 pef These values are allowable
and; include a factor of safety of at least 1.5.
It should be noted that the area bounded by lines extending downward at I H: IV fi-om any.footing
must not intersect another footing or wall, or intersect a filled area which has not been compacted
to at least 95 percent of ASTM:D 1557. In addition, a 1.514: IV line extending down and away
from any footing must not daylight because sloughing or raveling may eyentually undermine the
footing. Thus, footings should not be placed 'near the edge of steps or cutsin the bearing soils or,
close to retaining walls unless the walls.are designed for the Additional surcharge load.
Retamimig Walls
Retaining walls that are fi-ee to rotate may be designed for an active equivalent fluid pressure of
35 pcf with level backfill or 55 pef with sloping backfill. If the walls are restrained and unable to
rotate they should be designed for an atrest pressure of 50 pcf for level backfill. and 70 pcf with
sloping backfill. Loads from traffic, equipment or. surcharges from adjacent structures should be
added to these values by the design engineer'.
Resistance to lateral loads will be. as provided in the Foundations! Recommendations' section of
this: report. All structural retaining walls,or landscape walls taller than 3 feet must be lined with
a minimum of 12 inches of washed ro ' ck along their back sides to within I foot of finish grade, or
by an approved drainage mat such a Mira.Drain orincaDrain. The washed rock or drainage mat
must hydraulically connect to the footing drain.
AF
Gary A. loiveM PLLC_
1953� 12" AvemeW Shomlim Washin" 98155-1106 206417-7640
Proposed &dmond�- Retail Deyelopment OvologicallGeotechnical Serviewn Report
2341h.S1. SW @,H14yqq, � Edmonds, Washington
We are unaware at this time of any mechanically.stabilized earth retaining walls planned for the
site. I If any such walls are planned that are over 4 feet in height, we should be contacted to
evaluate the walls and provide a suitable design. -
Floor Support Recommendations
Slab -on -grade concrete floors may be, placed over firm non -yielding, native s6giides or atop
structural -fill. Any material that ha�s been disturbed and is not dense and unyielding should either
be recompacted or removed and replaced with structural fill.
A capillary break layer consisting of 4 inches I of washed. pea. gmvel or other clean, washed,
granular material, and �a heavy duty (minimum 10 mil), polyethylene plastic vapor barrier should
be providedunder any floor slabs where. moisture intrusion is a concern. If the vapor barrier
becomes compromised in any way during construction it. should b e replaced or -an additional
layer added. Penetrations through the vapor barrier should bewrapped and taped.
Site, Drainage
All, ! storm water runoff from � impervious surfaces,should be collected and piped into an, approved
storm water drainage system. All perimeter fboting walls . and retaining walls should be provided
with a drain at the footing level. Drains should'consist of rigid,, perforated, PVC pipe surrounded'
by washed pea gravel. The pipes should always be placed such th . at the perforations are located
on the lower one-third of the pipe section. The level of the perforations in the pipe should be set
no higher than the bottom of the footing., and the drains should be constructed with sufficient
gradi . ent to allow gravity discharge away from the'buildings. Roof and suriace runoff should not
-discharge into the footing drain system, but should be handled by a separate, rigid, tightline drain
that discharges into an approved, storm water conveyance system. In planning, exterior grades
adjacent to walls should be sloped 'downward away from the structure to achieve surface
drainage.
Erosion Protection
The natural on -site soils contain a significant,amount of fines and are considered tobe moisture
sensitive. We anticipate that these materials, when disturbed, will be vulnerable to erosion from
botfi sheet flow and cbannelized flow. However, due to the gentle site gradient the erosion
potential should be addressed by standard erosion control methodology. The plan should
include, at a minimum, placement of silt fences along the lower reaches,of the property. The silt
fences should be placed as per local municipal specifications, and be properly maintained. Soil
stock -piles should be,colvered with plastic sheeting during periods of inclement weather. During
ramy weather, areas stripped of vegetation and exposed backfill should be covered with plastic or
a mimmurn of 21nches of straw mulch wheniot being worked. The constructioh'entrance
should be rocked to Minimize off -site soil transport.
Gary A. Ftowem PLLC.
19532 121b Avenue NE Shmlinc. Washington 9915571106 206-417-7640
9
Piwpqsed Mmonds Retail Development GiologicallGeolechnical Services Report
234'* �;St. SW @ . 99,-Edmands, Washington _6
SUNUMLARY
Based on our site reconnaissance and subsurface explorations, we are of the opinion that the
subject site -is suitable for the proposed development provided the recommendations presented'
herein are properly implemented.
We recommend that we be retained toprovide'construction monitoring and consul ' tation services
to verify that subsurface conditions are as expected and that construction conforms to the
,recommendations in this report and the project plans and specifications. Should conditions be.
revealed during construction that differs from the anticipated subsurface profile, we would be.
able to evaluate those changed conditions, and provide alternative recommendations .,where
appropriate.
Our findings and recommendations p r-ovided in this report "were prepared in � accordance with
generally accepted principles of engineering geol 'and geotechnical engineering as practiced in
NY . -
the Puget Sound area at the time, thi , s report was submitted. 'We make no other warranty, either
express or.implied.
&A60.66*_
Sincerely,
Gary A. Flowers, P.G., P.E.G.
Eng ineering Geologist
Attachments: Figure 1: Site and Exploration Plan
Appendix A - Exploration Pit Logs
Robert M. Pride, P.E.
Geotechnical Engineer
GaTy A. Flowem PLLC
19532 12" Aymuc NE Shominic, Washington 9 8155'-11.06 20&-417-7640
10
il
0 '6'.'
V. w
RETAIL 8 Frf, 4 2
(7-11
EP-4
FFE 4 1.1
Autolone TA
W 7,369 sl
E P 3 J,
F-1 S"
it
41
EP4
EP-6 EP
RETAIL A
4,970 S.F.
FFE 4 1
W
EP-1
Ak-
LEGEND
EP4 Approxhate locatlon of exploration 0
KI:HzKk:NGh' . I nOMUS I nOMPS00, MA, W14M
I GARY A. FLOWERS, PLLC
N
0 A 30
SCALE IN FEET
SITE AND EXPLORATION PLAN FIGURE I
COMMERCIAL DEVELOPMENT DATE 9107
HIGHWAY'99 AT234TH STREET SW
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON PROJECT NO, .07-076
Prootn d f pment 0109
e , dmon& &?Iad Dt"'l-do Qe icallGeolechnical Servied Reporl
HUYOJE
2,34K'St, SW� Ed.�ondv, lifarhingf n
0'0'�' OY
O.k_3.51'
15'4.0
3.5'4.0$
EP-;3
2.0' L4.0-
,EP4
0.9'�'03'
7 ,
3.7'
.3.7'4.0'
4.0%6-0'
APPENDIX A
sod/top I soil
medium,dense, dampibrown,' silty SAND with gravel to V diameter, (weathered
native)
dense, damp, gray, silty, S'o&b with I gravel. (glacial till)
9���
sod/topsoil,
meAjum dense, damp, brown silty SAND withgravel to 6" diameter,(weathered
native)
dense, damp.' gray, silty SAND with gravel Wacial iilly.
loose, -brown, silty $AND with, gravel and mino deb s' 11)
i r ri H
(f
medium dense, dAmp,: b�p silty SAI�D with �gravdl to 6," diameter (�Aieathered',
nativ,P),
dense, damp, gray, silty SAND with gravel (glacial till)
2. H,, 2@ 4.OW' No caa'W,,, �No gound watel
forrest'duff
medium . dense, dryto dAmp,brown, silty.SANDwith gravel to 811, diameter and,
rninor,dehri� (fill)
medium dense. black, fine, sandy SILTwith, organics (relictopsoil layer)
mediiili6'd�n�e,"d4mp,,br,6,wn, silty SAND with gravel to V diameter (weathered
native)
BOH.'@,6.0"'No caving, No ground water
19532 126 A�c�uc NE
Gair'y'A.Fi�w'ersiVLLC
��81554 106.
206-417-'7640:
Pro -icei Re
[,4,sedfdmonds Retait bel,�Iqpnlenl Ge�lpgicallGcotechnical Sery port,
234� St, SW i� Hv-�N9, Edmandt Waghifigi�n
EP-�5
Off— 1W loose, brown,.siltv SAND wiffi gravel to 8 incb'diameter,and minordebris (fill)"
3-W-5.0' medium dense, damo, brown, si4 SAND with gravel to, 67 diameter (weathered
native
BOH @ 5,.O'-'No caving: No und-wAter
gro
EP4
0.0�3-0` lqose,,�Fqwn� silty I SAND with gravel and'minor debris.(filt)
m I diameter (weathered
3.07:-5.0 ro,%%, SlIty'SAND vd'ith'f grave' to 6
4ative)
BOH Q 5.0' No, ca*ng-1,No ground water
Gary. A. FIGwem PLLC-
19531 120�.A'vcnue NIR, Wa'qhk
gim�qlt I ss- 1106 206,417-764'q",
-7� e,
CITY OF EDMONDS
1h
121 5 Avenue North Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us S4"PLF_-
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DIVISION
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
-STAFFDECISION-
ADB-2007-72:
Application by Mike Adams of Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects, representing Terrence Conway of
CRE Properties, for design review of a new office/warehouse building on a currently undeveloped parcel,
located at 21020 701h Avenue West in the General Commercial (CG2) zone.
Property Owner:
Terrence Conway
CRE Properties
210207 01h Avenue West
Edmonds WA 98026
Site Location:
Applicant.
Mike Adams
Taylor Gregory Butterfield Architects
21911 76h Avenue West — Suite 2 10
Edmonds WA 98026
21020 701h Avenue West in the General Commercial (CG2) zone (see map below)
Project Proposal:
The proposal is for a new 9,000 square foot wood -
framed single story building with a two-story
wing on a currently undeveloped parcel. 7,500
square feet will be used for manufacturing (a
screen print shop) and 1,500 square feet will be
used for office space. A SEPA Determination
(DNS) was issued on November 8, 2007 and no
comments or appeals were received.
Design Review Process:
ii TH S I SW 111 memo
Gc
TH T SW
t
�t
C/ yl
V
The subject site is in the General Commercial (CG2) zone, and this project requires District -Based Design
Review by staff. Projects that remain under the height limit are reviewed by staff with the building
permit process, and the design review is considered an administrative Staff Decision subject to the
requirements of ECDC 20.12 (District -Based Design Review), 20.95 (Staff Decision), 16.60 (General
Commercial), and the Comprehensive Plan.
Page I of 6
) 0
Staff Report for ADB-2007-72
CRE Properties: Officj;!Wareh-pse
1�0
Analysis:
A. Facts:
1. The improvements are proposed on property with a General Commercial zoning designation
(CG2). t
2. ECDC 16.60.030 states that design review by the Architectural Design Board is required for any
project that includes buildings exceeding 75 feet in height in the CG2 zone. Projects not
exceeding these heights may be reviewed by staff as a staff de ' cision. Regardless of what review
process is required, all projects proposed in the CG2 zone must meet the design standards
contained in ECDC 16.60.
3. The building is well under the 75-foot height limit; it is approximately 26 feet tall (Attachment 6).
4. The commercial warehouse (a screen print shop) is the primary use of the site, accompanied with
an office use.
5. The immediate proposal is to construct a new 9,000 square foot wood -framed single story
building with a two-story wing on a currently undeveloped parcel.
6. The applicant has recently obtained approval for a lot line adjustment (LLA) between this site and
the parcel to the east (File LL-2007-78). This map has been recorded under file #200711155002.
7. A Critical Areas Deten-nination was made for the property under file #CRA-2007-126. It was
determined that there are no critical areas on or adjacent to the property; therefore, no critical
areas reports will be required.
8! A SEPA Determination (DNS) was issued on November 8, 2007. No comments or appeals were
received (Attachment 2).
% The table below shows the required (and proposed) setbacks for structures in the CG2 zone.
CG2
Side
Side
Side
Side
Zone
(North)
(South)
(East)
(West)
Required
0
0
0
0
Setbacks
Proposed
7'
2' 9 1/4
91
5' 9"
Setbacks
10. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this site is "Highway 99 Corridor," and it is also located
both within the "Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center" and the "Hi -Rise Node."
11. For this project, the grading will require approximately I 10 cubic yards of excavation and
approximately 65 cubic yards of fill — the DNS has allowed up to 1,000 cubic yards of cut or fill
(Attachment 2).
* ECDC 16.60.030.A.2.a states that "Type W landscaping, minimum four feet wide, is required along all
street frontages." The property has twelve feet of street frontage and contains parking, and the site plan
shows approximately 136 square feet of landscaping (approximately 8 feet wide by 17 feet deep).
Page 2 of 6
I 'I , 4
Staff Report for ADB-2007-72
CRE Properties: 0ffi(&War*Pse
12. The applicant has stated that there will be 10 employees on the largest warehouse shift, which
requires 5 parking spaces pursuant to ECDC 17.50.020.B. 15. There will be approximately 1500
square feet of new office space, which some of the warehouse employees will use. The parking
ratio for office space requires 3.75 parking spaces pursuant to ECDC I 7.50.020.B.5. Total on -site
parking required by code is nine (8.75) parking spaces. The site plan shows that 10 parking
spaces are provided (Attachment 3).
13. There are no adjacent residential ly-zoned properties.
14. There are several Comprehensive Plan goals and policies for commercial development (some are
specific to the Medical/Highway 99 Activity Center). These include:
"The City will encourage the retention of commercial uses which provide high economic
benefit to the city, such as new auto dealerships, and encourage these types of uses to locate
within the Highway 99 Corridor. " (Page 48)
Design Objectives for Building Form: "Building height and modulation guidelines are
essential to create diversity in buildingforms, minimize shadows cast by taller buildings upon
the pedestrian areas and to ensure compliance with policies in the city's Comprehensive
Plan. Protecting viewsftom public parks and building entries as well as street views to the
mountains and Puget Sound are an important part ofEdmonds character and urbanform.
(Page 77)
Highway 99 — General Appearance: "Creation of a new identity. Development of high
intensiry nodes. Better identification of businesses by numbering. Encouragement ofplanned
business centers and design coordination among neighbors. Buildingforms compatible with
adjacent uses. Parking areas more clearly defined to eliminate confusion of driveways, street
andparking areas. Unsightly uses and storage screened by landscaping andJencing. " (Page
79)
15. The office/warehouse is the proposed commercial land use, which is encouraged by the above
Comprehensive Plan policy.
16. The parking area is clearly defined.
17. There are no known local views in the vicinity.
18. The height of the proposed new building is relatively small at approximately 26 feet.
19. ECDC 20.13.030.0 defines "Type III Landscaping" as follows:
"Type IIIlandscaping is intended to provide visual separation of usesftom streets, andvisual
separation of compatible uses so as to soften the appearance of streets, parking areas and
building elevations. "
20. Type III landscaping is not shown along the North, South, East, and West sides on the landscape
plan (Attachment 4).
21. Pursuant to ECDC 20.13.030.C. I and 2, the following two ways of providing Type III
landscaping are applicable to this project:
" 1. Evergreen and deciduous trees, with no more than 50 percent being deciduous, a minimum of
sixfeet in height, andplanted at intervals no greater than 30feet on center; and
2. Ifplanted to buffer a building elevation, shrubs, a minimum of three and one-halffeet in
height, and living ground cover planted so that the ground will be covered within three years.
Page 3 of 6
f �,;. 0
Staff Report for ADB-2007-72
CRE Properties: Officv,/Warelwse
22. ECDC 16.30.030.A. Lk states, "when no setback is otherwise required, Type III landscaping
threefeet in width and continuous in length is required between uses in the same zone. " There is
no setback otherwise required for this property.
23. The site plan shows an "existing retaining wall" along the south property line.
24. ECDC 17.30.00013 states, "When a retaining wall three feet in height or greater is contiguous to
and below a proposed fence, the proposed fence may be constructed for the purposes of safety not
greater than four feet above the top of the retaining wall or the finished grade, whichever is less,
without the necessity for a variance."
25. The site plans shows that there is less than three feet between the south elevation and the south
. property line.
26. The site fronts is tucked behind a property that fronts on 70th Avenue West. 701h Avenue West is
considered a "Local Street."
27. No street trees are required for properties fronting on 70th Avenue West.
28. The project proposes a 30-year composition shingle roof in the color "weathered wood"
(Attachment 7).
29. The project proposes hardiplank lap siding in a "pebblestone beige" color on the bottom half of
the building. Alternatively, the upper portion of the building proposes board and battens applied
vertically and painted in the same color. The wood exterior door will be painted "copper mine."
The window, belly band, and comer trim are shown painted "tudor brown."
B. Conclusions:
1. The colors chosen are of a neutral color palate and are an appropriate fit for the building and
neighborhood,
2. The project appears to meet the design standards in the code (ECDC 16.60), however all
development standards will be reviewed with the building permit.
3. The project appears to meet the parking requirements for off-street parking (Attachment 3).
4. This project meets the design guidelines found in the Comprehensive Plan and the design review
chapter of the Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.12.
5. A building permit for the proposed improvements will need to be approved prior to construction.
6. The Landscape Plan will need to show additional landscaping in order to meet ECDC 20.13.
Specifically, the plan will need to be revised to show "Type 111" landscaping along the west
property line, along the north property line, along the northern portion of the east property line
(where it borders the building). Planning staff would consider approving a landscape plan that
"clustered" the landscaping more along the north and west elevations, as long as the overall
planting density is met.
7. 1 If the existing retaining wall along the south property line is less than 3.5 feet in height (as
measured from top of wall to original grade), one way to meet intent of "Type 111" landscaping
along the south property line is to have a 3.5 foot opaque fence along this property line.
Page 4 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-72
CRE Properties: Offiqe/Ware!iause
Technical Review:
The Engineering Division, Building Division, Fire Department, Public Works Department, and the Parks
& Recreation Department have reviewed this design review application. The Engineering Division
requested a Traffic Impact Analysis from the applicant. Said analysis was submitted and reviewed by the
Engineering Division.
Public Comments:
The City has not received any comment letters for this project.
Decision:
Based on the facts, conclusions, and attachments to this report, staff finds that the design review for this
project (file number ADB-2007-72) is APPROVED with the following conditions:
1. The applicant must obtain a building permit for the proposed work, and individual elements of this
project are required to meet all applicable city codes.
2. The Landscape Plan shall be revised to show "Type 111" landscaping around the north, south, east,
and west sides of the property per ECDC 20.13. Planning will consider an approach that would
cluster the landscaping along the north and west property lines. An opaque fence 3.5 feet in height
along the southern property line would satisfy the "Type 111" requirement.
I have reviewed the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community Development Code.
Gina Coccia, Planning Division
Attachments:
1.
Land Use Application
2.
SEPA Determination
3.
Site Plan (A 1.00, SV 1.00)
4.
Landscape Plan (LI.00)
5.
Floor Plans (A2. 10)
6.
Elevations (A3.00, A4.00)
7.
Color Samples
Date
Page 5 of 6
Staff Report for ADB-2007-72
CRE Properties: Officq4WarehWse
Appeals and Expiration:
The following is a summary of the deadlines and procedures for filing appeals and extensions. Any
person wishing to file an appeal or extension should contact the Planning Division at 425.771.0220 for
further procedural information.
Appeals — Section 20.12.080 describes how appeals of administrative design review shall be made.
ECDC 20.12.080.C: Design review decisions by staff under the provisions of ECDC 20.12.030 are only appealable to
the extent that the applicable building permit or development approval is an appealable decision under the provisions of
the ECDC. Design review by staff is not in itself an appealable decision.
ECDC 20.12.080.D: Persons entitled to appeal are (1) the applicant; (2) anyone who has submitted a written document
to the city of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.12.020(B); or (3)
anyone testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.12.020(B).
Lxpiralion — Section 20.12.90 describes the time limitsfor design review approval.
ECDC 20.12.090.A: Unless the owner submits a fully completed building permit application necessary to bring about
the approved alterations, or, if no building permit application is required, substantially commences the use allowed
within 18 months from the date of approval, ADB or hearing examiner approval shall expire and be null and void,
unless the owner files a fully completed application for an extension of time prior to the expiration date.
Page 6 of 6
CONSTRUCT CB OVER EXISTING PIPE
CONTR4CTOR T6 VERIFY LOCATIONS\
tIVITH NO CAP
AND DEPTH. -NOTIFY ENGINEER FOR
NORTH,
DISCREPANCIES
AND CAP,
Ty
�T
FF=413.56
OF
/RETAIL,"
12" SO 00.5%
C
3,330 S.F.
REAR SIDEWALK
cl
"A ICE R1110
ADS "7 Z' 1"' PCP (Ep.
/I V.
'S�
TO BE 6
SO
58LF 12" SO 4.31%
97
Cm 2
?M=412.75-+
�IE=409.50 53
/ 4 4�
Cm so,
FF=415.60 RIMz�111.00
10 IL=408.00
t
4 0 C6
Z'
RETAIL B
2' SD 00.5%
v
REFAINING -11000 S.F.//
10' UTILITY
EASEMENT
BE
ANDONED 7.1-
vv
411. 54
E,
EFIL =41-71 34
JOLF
12- SO 0 0.56%
:7
CB#1
RIM=409.50
0. IE=404.65
------------ a It CB RiAli 4;, 5,
0,
If
8 40%- -4
T - r—. - —
PIPE L TRASH ENCLOSURF 5111 F 112" Rcp (s)
ONS W44 DRAIN INTO C Y1
FOR N
D 00.5%
144L 12" �D'OiO-91% 00
0#3
R)
S&- I � 73.871 11�� 101
SIA: 2+83.60
RIM=41J.98
A
4?9.
_j! +62.72
SIA: 2+31.82 S
'NS RIM=408.00
7OR RIM=409.47 IE=405.65
IF=404.90 CONSTRUCT CB
L,1 IOVER EX, PIPE
_4
Y
FF=414.00
�E
+
_7
It i;�
/R TAII A
KON B RIM 407.52'
1 13 4,600,'S.F. RCP N = 404.72' /9
12 RCP (E) = 404.61
7RELO&W EX.
R AND POWER POLE P.
CAP
-io 81
�581 ON LP
Wr AT j0
07, 42.3111
RUNE OF STA: 18+55.
7T
24'
1: 12 MWAX SWPE�' MATCH TO EX. CURB &
SIDEWALK
ACP R4MP_
d 65 'L.
DEVELOPED BASIN BOUNDARY
7/T
AREA 1.37 AC
S
PROPOSED IA: 0+ 18 0�
(:)� +
FOG LINE ZE
t 457.34'
N 8T 71- 141
MATCH EXIST_.� _5�:21
10�92.146
�'V -10 oj'V W
- - h - 10
5-10 '234 TREE .55 W
T
SITE ADDRESS-
234th ST. SW & HWY. 99
EDMONDS, WA 98020
TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S: 00576700002002
sw 114, M 1A SEC-31, T.22N., R.4E., IF.M.
A-2 at EDMONDS
REV. BY DA IE PRaECT MANAGER SCALE
ALD 11121107 1 BRK 1.�_ I
UMA YANG FILENAME 1EC NO.
07-04431bwclbEscNlbv-BASKMAP.dwg 07-0443
SHEE'T
B2
DEVELOPED BASIN MAP Of
2
LEGEND
BASN BOUNDARY
GRAPHIC SCALE
3 0 0 15 30 60
( IN FEET ) -
1 inch 30 ft.
3630 COLBY AVE.,
(425) 303 EVERETT, WA 98201
m93 6S3 4G2 30 -9362 FAX
IN 16ML &WGI�
REV ma mnas DA 1E
'-p 759
mw 7
L, FIM 404,3?�
4 0"'/
0-'.
T6 225LF SHEET FLOW 08.88X
, 7- 1 4i Qi
cb'
5
EX. FH
:70.:7- -1.7
C I
v
C
AA,
C
OF
ss
14,
f EX. SD (TBR) CE? RIM 410.51
§ 12 RCP (W = 406.91
I RCP (5) = 406.81'
h
A
/01 b,
A,
21 i
'y
.1 h
T
U. FH
— — — mw
- I -'- .
N
Q:) EXIs-nNG BASIN BOUNDARY—
N 8;r5g'21 E 457-34'
#/
AREA 1.37 AC
ov
sTREETSW
234 TH
WE ADDRESS.
234th ST. SW & HWY. 99
EDMONDS, WA 98020
TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S.- 00576700002002
sw 114, 19 A STC-31, T.27N., R.4R., W.M.
A-2 at EDMONDS
REV. BY DAIE I PR&JECT MANAGER SCALEJO,
ALD 11121107 BRK 1*=
10RAWNG RLENAME I IEC " NO. I
LEGEND
m m m m 0 BASN BOUNDARY
50
GRAPHIC SCALE
30 0 15 30 60
IN FEET
1 inch = 30 f t.
SqEET
Bl
EXISTING BASIN MAP Of
1 2
3630 COLBY AVE.,
(425) 303 EVERETT, WA 98201
,;m9363GwL4gWm3'03 9362 FAX
Am An I amow"
ofinvs I DAM
kj
FOUND CONCRETE
MONUMENT WITH 1.75"
BRASS DISC AND
PUNCH, 0.3' DEEP IN
MONUMENT CASE
290'91' E
FOUND REBAR WITH NO CAP x
1.0' EAST AND 1.2' NORTH
OF CORNER.
FOUND REBAR AND CAP,
LS#37527 ON PROPERTY
LINE, 2.0' E4ST OF
CORNER. a t 11 --AM I
REAR SIDEWALK
INV. 3" ADS = 427.2'—
RETAINING XALL--�`
10' SEWER
EASEMENT
61)
\%T
0,
1011,
@ as
. ruvvr-n rt
FOUND REBAR AND CAP
'EMERALD LSJO581' ON
PROPERTY LINE AT 30'
FROM CENTERLINE OF
234TH STREET SW.
1: 12 MAX. SL
ACP RAMP�-
STA:9+ 6.50,13.651
A�
00 MATCH TO
I _,PP EX. CURB
7 7 vv / ,
PROPOSED
FOG LINE
MATCH EXIS
.29 - -------
_J� �4 —
— SD
\SSMH RIM = 445.80'
8" PVC N, E, & W
CTR CHANNEL -- 437.90'
FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH
1.75" BRASS DISC AND PUNCH,
0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE.
ELEVATION = 461.63'
b71LflTC0)VFL1CTN0TE.-
CA MON. -
THE CONTRACTOR SHAIJ BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIF)ING THE LOCARON,
DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL LXIS77NG UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING IHE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL
INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE @ 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE
EXIS71NG UTILITIES AT LOCA77ONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHMCAII Y
VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID U71UTIES AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. F CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
CALL TWO (2) BUSINESS DA YS
BEFOREYOU DIG 1-800-424-5555
Amw
cs, I
N�N 8.75921" k 457.34'�
— f_� W I
W T7_ � 2ArU 4Z
S _7� SIG
-7
'PP wM
N
S W 114, AE 114, SEC. 31 9 T. 2 7 N. 9 R. 4 E. � W.M.
SNOHOWSHCOLMY, WASMVGTON w E
S
30 29
1,209'.*
L__+3132
EAST
t / vl�
c 41
c) cl:�
ul,
SO,
231
H
ON,
PR
- --- ---- ----
/N 87*59,'21" E ?60.61 E242ND
SCA-LE: 1 30' 4
OEM
30 15 0 30 60
3,330 S.F.
C1
'77
J_ 177
404.32'
CB RIM
12 RCP (E,
. . . . . . . . . . . j
Cb
A5
IA�
wv
0
!41;;'1 F
CO
J,
4. W STA: 2+83.60
L
IG 8 RIM 407. 2'
12 RCP N = 404.72'
12" RCP (E) = 404.162'
STA: 18+55.07, 42.31,v
.�-MATCH TO D(. CURB &
SIDEWALK
I RIM = 411.54'
VC N,' S,. k W
CHANNEL 401.001
.SBEETINDEX
C1
COVER SHEET
C2
DEMOLITION PLAN
CJ
TESC & GRADING PLAN
C4
ROAD & DRAINAGE PLAN
C5
DETENTION PLAN
SWI SEWER AND WATER PLAN
LVVE TABLE
LNE
LENGTH
BEARING
L1
128.27
NO2J442"W
L2
42.28
N87*25'18"E
L3
66.44
S66'00'23"E
CURVE TABLE
CUR VE
LENGTH
RADHJS
DELTA
C1
72.26
46.00
90,00,00"
C2
16.23
35.00
26*34'19"
CffYOFEDMOI)IDS
APPROVED FOR CONSM UCTION
C.-
.LEGEND
EXISTING MONUMENT (AS SHOWN)
PROPOSED MONUMENT
+ SECTION CORNER
a FOUND REBARICAP OR I.P. (IRON PIPE)
TOR TO BE REMOVED
P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT
ff�] CB STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN
(55DMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
@SSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
0 co SANITARY SEWER CLF_4N OUT
1(:�PP POWER POLE
E UTILITY POLE ANCHOR
03 WM WATER METER
>< wv WATE9 VALVE
PMB MAILBOX
'0 FH FIRE HYDR4NT (2 NOZZLE)
TYPE I NGPA SIGN
NO PARKING SIGN
R.O.W.- RIGHT-OF-WAY
CENTERLINE
EXISTING DITCH
— — — — — — — — BUILDING SETBACK LJNE (BSBL)
PROPERTY LINE
—X—X— EXISTING FENCE LINE
EDGE OF EXISTING PAVEMENT
XXX - - - - - - - - - - - EXISTING CONTOURS
rx—_xxl PROPOSED CONTOURS
PREfX1S77NG DPAINAGE FA,
PROPOSED
PWPOSED
NOTES:
1. THIS SURVEY HAS BEEN PREFA THE EXCLUSIVE USE OF
PARTIES WHOSE NAMES APPEAR ONLYAND DOES NOT
EXTEND TO ANY UNNAMED THIRD PAR THOUT EXPRESS
RECERTIFICATION BY 774E LAND SUR
Z BOUNDARY LINES SHOWN AND CORNERS SET T DEED
LOCATIONS, OWNERSHIP LINES MAY VARY. NO 0 OF
OWNERSHIP IS EXPRESSED OR IMPLIED THIS SURVEY FORMED
WITHOUT THE BENEFIT OF A TITLE REPORT A D DO URPORT
TO SHOW ALL EASEMENTS, RESTRIC77ONS, R
OCCUPA77ON WHICH MAY ENCUMBER 777LE TO OR OF
PROPERTY.
3. FOR LANDSCAPING SEE SEPAR47E LANDSCAPE PLAN.
4. MONUMENTS SHALL BE FOUND ANDIOR SET ACCORDING TO EDDS
4-03. SEE SHEET C3.
5. PROPOSED FIRE HYDRANTS SHALL BE IN SERVICE PRIOR TO ANY
COMBUSTIBLE CONSTRUCTION.
6. SIGNAGE OR PAVEMENT STRIPING SHALL BE PROWDED ALONG THE
DRIVE AISLE FOR INO PARKING —FIRE LANE,- AT 77ME or
COMPLETfON.
Z ALL HOMES WILL BE PROVIDED WITH NFPA 13—D FIRE SUPPRESSION
2 REVISIONS PER ARCH17ECT SJR 105-13-2
1 REVISIONS PER CITY OF EDMONDS SJR 03;pQ
REV. NO. DESCRIPTION INMALS , rDATE
W I f—fc
F—EXPIRES 11 /30/2008 j I
i� ,
CO
Lake
Ballinger,
_cvVi7y"
SCALE. 1"4000'
EQ UIPMEA T A MD PR 0 CED URE
METHOD OF SURVa-
SURVEY PERFORMED BY FIELD TRAVERSE
INSTRUMENTATION.
LEICA TCR4 1105 ROBOTIC ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION
PRECISION. -
MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS WAC 332-130-090
BASIS OF BEARING.
THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF 234TH STREET NE,
AS THE BEARING OF N 875921" E
CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH 1.75' BRASS DISC
AND PUNCH, 0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE,
("ch BM IN CENTERLINE OF Z34TH, J20' WEST OF sim
19V ELEVATION 461.63'
DA
NAVD 68
.ENGNEER SURVErOR
INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY FACIRC COAST SURVEYS, INC.
3630 COLBY AVENUE P.O. BOX 3286
EVERETT, WA 98201 EVERETT, WA 98213
CONTACT. BRIAN R. KALAB (425) 508-4951
(425) 303-9363 FAX (425) 357-3577
FAX (425) 303-9362
ARCHMECT OWNER
THOMAS 7HOMPSON M
29619 15th AVENUE NE
STMWOOD, WA 98292
(360) 629-3985
FAX (360) 629-5435
Af ��Aff
A—Z 0 NDS LLC.
23723 1 th PL W
ELPSHOR WA 98020
9 0 6) 5 —4411
A AX
X (2 ) 542-9654
A
CLAY EMPRISES LLC.
2002 196th ST SW
LYNNWOOD, WA 98036
SOUTH 224FEEF OF' THE F LYING WESTERLY OF
S ROAD THE SOU BEING THE INTERSECTIO
0 THE WESTERLY OF THE WES LINE OF SAID
A ACCORDING
CT 20, SKELTON' E A�,11
PLAT THEREOF P PAGE
RECORDS OFSNOHO CO TON.
PARCEL B
ALL SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
FOR: , PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR DATE
SW 1149 AE 114, SEC. 31, T. 27 Xq R. 4 E.9 W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHWGTON
FOUND CONCRETE
MONUMENT WITH 1.75"
BRASS DISC AND
PUNCH, 0.3' DEEP IN
MONUMENT CASE.
N 875921" E
_J!;�4�.2
8" PVC N, E, & W
CTR CHANNEL = 437.90'
FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH
1.75" BRASS DISC AND PUNCH,
0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE.
ELEVATION = 461.63'
FOUND REBAR WITH NO CA
1.0' EAST AND 1.2' NORTH
OF CORNER.
FOUND REBAR AND CAP,-
LSJJ7527 ON PROPERTY
LINE, 2.0' EAST OF
CORNER.
INV. 3" ADS = 427.2'
TO BE
MUNDONED
@ SSMH RIM=411.54'(MR)
4
8" PVC N, S, E, & W
@00 CTR CHANNEL =413.84'
(rs
FOUND REBAR AND CAP
'EMERALD LS30581' ON
PROPERTY LINE AT 30'
FROM CENTERLINE OF
234TH STREET SW.
t t t �v
goo
SO,
RD
E 60.6 1'�
IN 87*59 1
T7T,
rp
$7
f -Opp (2) WV
PROPOSED c)�
FOG LINE
Trn INE MATCH EXIST.-' N A7*5��21_1 451-,)
jr/ifiv W I -
ENTER I —OF R w
I A9. t 234 TH 5
sT ss 'I-- _�
I I SIG�N
3
,B RIM = 434.48'
12" DI (E) = 431.58'
12" DI (W) = 431.48'
\/ N
�n ni. J — A 4 7 0 -7'
. 4
CB RIM 404.32' SCALE: 1" 30'
12 R C P (E) = 462.
t 02'
MEM OEM
is 0 30 60
CB RIM 410.51
12 RCP W
12 RCP 406.81'
407.
N = 04.72
(E) = 4.62'
UTIL[7]7 CONFLICTNOTE.-
CA UTION. -
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION,
DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL D(ISTING 077LITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL
INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE 0 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF 7HE
EXISTING UTILITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY
VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCA77ONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHAI I CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
k
c. 6
cd
N
FOUND RERAR WITH NO CA
1.0' EAST AND 1.2' NORTH
OF CORNER.
FOUND REBAR AND CAR-
LS#37527 ON PROPERTY
LINE, 2.0- EAST OF
CORNER.
SCALE: I"= 30'
lomm Elm ommmmam
I mm om EMEMEEM I REAR SIDEWALK
30 15 0 30 60 INV. 3" ADS = 427.2'-
RETAINING WALL--`
10' SEWER
428� EASEMENT
as
Z_
PROPOSED MATERMLS SrOPA
JOB IMLER ErC. LOCATION.
FOUND REBAR AND CAP
'EMER4LD LSJ0581' ON
PROPERTY LINE AT 30'
ci.- FROM CENTERLINE OF
234TH STREET SW. 1:12 SL
ACP P
FOUND CONCRETE IA�9 +,�6�.Q, 13. 651
MATCH TO
MONUMENT WITH 1.75 1 _,,PP EX. CURB
BRASS DISC AND
PUNCH, 0.3' DEEP IN
T, PROPOSED
MONUMENT CASE. FOG LINE
MATCH EXIST.-,
N 8;r5g'21" E )PAINTED ENTERLINE
394.29 - ------- TER INE70F ROJT, W
vv
Itu
`��SSMH IrIM =445.80'
8" PVC N, E, & W
CTR CHANNEL = 4.37.90'
FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH
1.75" BRASS DISC AND PUNCH,
0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE
ELEVATION = 461.63'
FILTER FABRIC -
SECURED TO 2' X 2'
14 GA, WIRE FABRIC
EQUAL
2' X 2' WOOD OR
EQUIVALENT
N -PP
CB RIM = 434.48'
12 " DI (E) 431.58'
12 " DI (W) 431.48'
FILTER FABRIC MATERIAL IN
CONTINOUS ROLLS. USE STAPLES
OR WIRE RINGS TO ATTACH
FABRIC TO WIRE.
WIRE MESH SUPPORT
TO SUPPORT FILTER
I = , *1� =fp 11;4 1"
IFJ
8'- 12' jj!
zo
- -I Fc -- - - - - - - - - - -
Cu URY BOTTOM OF FILTER
MATERIAL 8' TO 12-
8# 6' MAX.
PLACE 3/4'-1.5' WASHED GRAVEL IN Li
THE TRENCH AND ON BOTH SIDES OF 2' X 2' WOOD POSTS OR
FILTER FABRIC FENCE ON THE SURFACE. EQUIVALENT
CONTRACTOR/DEVELOPER SHALL MAINTAIN AND REPLACE
STRAW BALES TO INSURE PROPER EROSION CONTROL.
234TH 5
SIGNIP4
ol
CIN CN
sb
"s 117Sj c NOTES (ECDC 18.30.050)
S W 1149 ArE 114, SEC. 319 T 2 7 X, R. 4 E. 9 W. M,
SNoHoqVffSH COL)7VTy
A, ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS ALL AC71VMES NECESSITATING A CLEARING OR GRADING PERMIT AND ALL UTILITY
WASHUTGTON PROJECTS CONSIS77NG OF MORE THAN 500 LINEAL FEET OF TRENCH EXCAVATION SHALL BE REQUIRED TO CONTROL
EROSION AND SEDIMENT DURING CONSTRUCTION AND TO PERMANENTLY STABILIZE EXPOSED SOIL RESULTING FROM
CONSTRUCTION. PROJECTS INVOLVING A CRITICAL AREA MAY ALSO BE REQUIRED TO COMPLY WITH ANY COMBINA77ON OF
THE ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS. COMPLIANCE WILL BE DEMONSTRATED THROUGH THE IMPLEMENTA71ON OF AN
APPROVED ESC PLAN. GUIDELINES FOR PREPARING ESC PLANS ARE PROVIDED IN THE MANUAL. THE PLAN MUST
ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING REQUIREMENTS.
0 c) C.,
CL c� (6 SO,
1. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CONS7RUCTION ACCESS ROUTE. CONSTRUCTION VEHICLE ACCESS SHALL BE, WHENEVER
11 iBILLBOARD
PRACTICAL, LIMITED TO ONE ROUTE. ACCESS POINTS SHALL BE STABILIZED WITH QUARRY SPALLS OR CRUSHED ROCK
--- - ---- ---- TO MINIMIZE THE TRACKING OF SEDIMENT ONTO PUBLIC ROADS. IF SEDIMENT IS TRANSPORTED ONTO A ROAD SURFACE,
,N qr5g.21" E 260.61' THE ROADS SHALL BE CLEANED THOROUGHLY AT THE END OF EACH DAY. SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED FROM ROADS
BY SHOVELING OR SWEEPING AND BE TRANSPORTED TO A CONTROLLED SEDIMENT DISPOSAL AREA WITHIN 24 HOURS.
STREET WASHING SHALL BE ALLOWED ONLY AFTER SEDIMENT IS REMOVED IN THIS, MANNER.
2 ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZATION OF EXPOSED AREAS ALL SOILS EXPOSED BY LAND DISTURBING AC71VITIES
SHAH BE STABILIZED BY SUITABLE APPLICA77ON OF BMPS, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIM17ED TO, SOD, HYDROSEEDING, OR
CC;;/_T OTHER VEGEIATION, PLASTIC COVERING, OR MULCHING. ALL BMPS SHALL BE SELECTED, DESIGNED, AND MAINTAINED IN
/mcp�o
:ESC ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL THE EXPOSED SOILS SHALL BE STABILIZED ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE.
(TYPICALLY, NO SOILS SHALL REMAIN EXPOSED FOR MORE THAN TWO. DAYS FROM OCTOBER I THROUGH APRIL 30 AND
EMERGENCY NO MORE THAN SEVEN DAYS FROM MAY 1 THROUGH SEPTEMBER 30).
SPIUNAY 3. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - PROTECTION OF ADJACENT PROPERTIES. ADJACENT PROPERTIES SHALL BE PR07ECTED
FROM SEDIMENT DEPOSITION BY APPROPRI47E USE OF VEGETATIVE BUFFER STRIPS, SEDIMENT BARRIERS OR FILTERS,
DIKES OR MULCHING, OR BY A COMBINAIION OF THESE MEASURES AND OTHER APPROPRIATE BMPS.
CB RIM = 404.32' 4. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - MAINTENANCE. ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL LIMPS SHALL BE REGULARLY
12 " RCP (E) = 402.027
INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY THE OWNER TO ENSURE CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OF THEIR INTENDED FUNC770N. ALL
MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE MANUAL.
Al 5. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - 07HER LIMPS. AS REQUIRED BY THE CITY, OTHER APPROPR14TE` BUPS TO MITIGATE THE
EFFECTS OF INCREASED RUNOFF SHALL BE APPLIED.
4�
6. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - UNDERGROUND UTILITY CONSTRUCRON. 7HE CONSTRUC71ON OF
I 11Q i 44 UNDERGROUND OTIL17Y LINES SHALL SPECIFICALLY ADDRESS THE FOLLOWING -
A. EROSION CONTROL FOR EXCAVATED AND STOCKPILED MATERIALS,
U s"
DC B. THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MATERIAL WHERE CONSISTENT WITH SAFETY AND SPACE CONSIDER47IONS SHALL BE
A. wv PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF TRENCHES,
C TRENCH DEWATERING SYSTEMS (MUST DISCHARGE INTO SEDIMENT TRAPS, SEDIMENT PONDS, OR OTHER ACCEPTABLE
MEANS),
00- D. TRACKING AND SPILLING OF MATERIALS ON STREETS DUE TO HAULING,
E DAILY CLEANUP AND STREET MAINTENANCE.
Z ADDITfONAL ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS FOR LARGER DEVELOPMENTS. ALL NEW DEVELOPMENT AND: REDEVELOPMENT
THAT INCLUDES LAND DISTURBING AC77VMES OF GREATER THAN, OR EQUAL TO, ONE ACRE IN ADDITION TO MEE77NG
THE MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS SET FORTH ABOVE SHALL COMPLY Wf7H ESC REQUIREMENTS LISTEDI BELOW.
_1P 8. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - Damw CLEARING AND EASEMENT LIMITS. IN THE FIELD, MARK CLEARING LIMITS
ANDIOR ANY EASEMENTS, SETBACKS, SENSIRVEICRITICAL AREAS AND THE BUFFERS, TREES AND DRAINAGE COURSES.
9. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - SEDIMENT TRAPPING. PRIOR TO LEAWNG THE SITE, STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL PASS
THROUGH A SEDIMENT POND OR SEDIMENT TRAR OR OTHER APPROPR14TE BMPS. SEDIMENT PONDS AND TRAPS,
PERIMETER DIKES, SEDIMENT BARRIERS, AND OTHER BMPS INTENDED TO TRAP SEDIMENT ON -SITE SHALL BE
CONSTRUCTED AS A FIRST STEP IN GRADING. THESE BMPS SHALL BE FUNC77ONAL BEFORE LAND DISTURBING AC71VI77ES
TAKE PLACE. EARTHEN STRUCTURES; SUCH AS DAMS, DIKES, AND DIVERSIONS SHALL BE SEEDED AND MULCHED
ACCORDING TO AN APPROVED TIMETABLE
10. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CUT AND FILL SLOPES. CUT AND FILL SLOPES SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONSTRUCTED
IN A MANNER THAT WILL MINIMIZE EROSION. IN ADDMON, SLOPES SHALL BE STABILIZED IN ACCORDANCE WITH ESC
+ REQUIREMENT NO. 2.
PO
UC71ON 11. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - CONTROLLING OFF -SITE EROSION. PROPER77ES AND WATER WAYS DOWNSTREAM FROM
D�MCE DEVELOPMENT SITES SHALL BE PROTECTED FROM EROSION DUE TO INCREASES IN THE VOLUME, VELOCITY, AND PEAK
FLOW RATE OF STORM WATER RUNOFF FROM THE PROJECT SITE.
12. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STABILIZ47ION OF TEMPORARY CONVEYANCE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. ALL TEMPORARY
If ON -SITE CONVEYANCE CHANNELS SHALL BE DESIGNED, CONSTRUCTED AND STABILIZED TO PREVENT EROSION FROM THE
EXPECTED VELOCITY OF FLOW FROM A TWO-YEAR, 24-HOUR FREQUENCY STORM FOR THE DEVELOPED COND17ION
STABILOTION ADEQUATE TO PREVENT EROSION OF OUTLETS, ADJACENT STREAM BANKS, SLOPES AND DOWNSTREAM
REACHES SHALL BE PROWDED AT 7HE OU71E7S OF ALL CONVEYANCE SYSTEMS.
13. ESC MINIMUM REQUIREMENT - STORM DRAIN INLET PROTECTION. ALL STORM DRAIN INLETS MADE OPERABLE DURING
CONSTRUCTION SHALL BE PROTECTED SO THAT STORM WATER RUNOFF SHALL NOT ENTER THE CONVEYANCE SYSTEM
WITHOUT FIRST BEING FILTERED OR OTHERWISE TREATED TO REMOVE SEDIMENT
�B RIM 407.52' 14. ESC REQUIREMENT - REMOVAL OF TEMPORARY BMPS. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BMPS SHALL
12 RCP N = 4N.777 BE REmovEo wITHIN 3o oAys AF7ER nNAL S17E STABILJZA71ON IS ACHIEVED OR AFTER THE TEMPORARY BMPS ARE NO
12" RCP (E) = 404.162' LONGER NEEDED. TRAPPED SEDIMENT SHALL BE REMOVED OR STABILIZED ON SITE. DISTURBED SOIL AREAS RESUL71NG
FROM REMOVAL SHALL BE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.
15. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - DEWATERING CONSTRUC71ON SITES. DEWATERING SYSTEMS SHALL
DISCHARGE INTO A SEDIMENT TRAP OR SEDIMENT POND.
16. EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - CONTROL OF POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT ON
CONSTRUCTION SITES ALL POLLUTANTS OTHER THAN SEDIMENT THAT OCCUR ON SITE DURING CONSIRUCTION SHALL BE
HANDLED AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE CONTAMIN47ION OF STORM WAITER.
.07, 42.3111 1Z EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL REQUIREMENT - FIA14NC14L L14BIL17Y PERFORMANCE BONDING, OR 0771ER
D(. CURB & APPROPR14TE FIAb4NC/AL INSTRUMENTS, SHALL BE REQUIRED FOR ALL PROJECTS TO ENSURE COMPLIANCE WITH 7HE
__�_ �1\ APPROVED EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTTOL PLAN, [ORD. 3013 § 1, 19951.
f
MIN, RADIUS
QUARRY SPALLS
2-4' MIN DIA
8'-12' MIN. DEPTH
PROVIDE FULL WIDTH OF INGRESS/
EGRESS AREA
CONTRACTOR SHALL MAINTAIN TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ENTRANCE
DURING THE CONSTRUCTION PERIOD.
STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE
DETAIL E1.1.1), THIS APPLICAITON
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON
PERIOD,
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTRO CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN, MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN.
IRTER FABPJC FENCE F&M77ON SYSTEMS STABILLZED CONSTRUCTIONENTRANCE -TEAVORAR Y SEDMNT TRAP FOR CA TCH BASEVS
NOT TO SCALE STD OTL El. I NOT TO SCALE SID DTL E1.2 NOT TO SCALE STO DTL. E1.3
SEDMIUM
INFLOW (IOYR124HR)
SURFACE REQUIRED
POND TOP ELEV.
POND BOTIUM ELEV
EMERGENCY OVERFLOW
spiLLwAyaEv.
ISURFACE AREA PROWDED
&TIL17Y CONFLICTNOTE.-
CA UTI01 V -
-GENERAL NOTES.
1. LOCA77ON OF EXISTING UTILMES AND IMPROVEMENTS SHOWN ARE APPROXIMATE ONLY. IT SHALL BE THE
RESPONSIBIL17Y OF THE CONTRACTOR To DETERMINE THE EXACT LOCATION(S) OF ALL THE UTIL177ES AND
IMPROVEMENTS TO AVOID DAMAGE AND DISTURBANCE.
Z ALL CONSTRUCTION SHALL CONFIRM TO THE CURRENT EDITION OF WSDOT STANDARD SPECIFICA77ONS FOR
MUNICIPAL PUBLIC WORKS CONSTRUCTION AND TO CITY OF EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE AND
STANDARD PLANS AND ANY REQUIREMENTS ESTABLISHED AT CITY HEARINGS ON THIS SITE.
3. ALL CONSTRUC77ON IS. SUBJECT TO INSPECTION BY THE CITY OF EDMONDS. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL
N07IFY THE CITY OF HIS SCHEDULE IN SUFFICIENT TIME TO PERMIT INSPEC77ON PRIOR TO AND DURING
THE WORK.
4. Al I WORK WITHIN THE SITE AND CITY RIGHT-OF-WAY SHALL BE SUBJECT TO THE INSPEC77ON OF THE
CITY ENGINEER.
5. THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR OBTAINING ALL PERMITS FOR ROAD AND UTILITY
CONS7RUC77ON.
6. PROWDE AND MAINTAIN TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND COLLECTION FACILITIES TO INSURE THAT
SEDIMENT -LADEN WATER DOES NOT ENTER THE NATURAL DRAINAGE SYSTEM. THESE FACILITIES MUST BE
IN OPERATION PRIOR TO CLEARING AND GRADING, AND SAIISFACTORILY MAINTAINED UNTIL CONSTRUCTION IS
COMPLETE AND THE POIENTAL FOR SITE EROSION HAS PASSED.
7. ALL STORM SEWER PIPE SHALL BE CONCRETE (CP), NON -REINFORCED, ASTM C-14, CORRUGATED METAL
14 GA GALVANIZED, ASPHALT COATED IREATMENT I OR BETTER, MEETING MSHTO M036- CORRUGATED
ALUMINUM, 12 GA., 3"xl' CORR. (OR PVC ASTM D-3034) EXCEPT AS NOTED.
8. ROAD RESTORA71ON SHALL BE PER CITY OF EDMONDS STANDARDS. 314 SACK CDF TRENCH BACKFILL
REQUIRED IN HIGHWAY 99
9. ALL ROOF DRAINS SHALL BE CONNECTED TO THE STORM DR41NAGE DETENTION SYSTEM.
10. ALL ROOF DR41N STUDS SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2"x4" POST SHOWING DEPTH AND MARKED IDRAIN'
11. ALL CATCH BASINS SHALL HAVE LOCKING LIDS OR GRATED.
12. ALL TYPE 11 CATCH BASIN MANHOLES AND ALL INLETS, CATCH BASINS OUTSIDE OF THE PUBLIC RIW SHALL
HAVE LOCKING LIDS OR GRATES.
13. STANDARD LADDER STEPS SHALL BE POLYPROPYLENE.
14. ALL STRUCTURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM DENSITY OF 957. OF MAXIMUM DENSITY BY
MODIFIED PROCTOR TEST
15. UTILITY TRENCH BACKFILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO 951". RELATIVE COMPACTION UNDER ROADWAYS AND
907. OUTSIDE ROADWAYS.
16. STORMWATER DETEN770NIRETENTION FACILITIES MUST BR FLUSHED AND CLEANED PRIOR TO ACCEPTANCE.
1Z TEMPORARY SEDIMENTATION AND EROSION CONTROLS SHALL BE MAINTAINED FOR THE DURATION OF THE
CONSTRUCTION. TYPICAL METHODS SHALL INCLUDE A TEMP. ROCK CONSTRUC77ON ENTRANCE, CHANNELS
FOR SURFACE RUNOFF, HAY BALES, SILT FENCE OR OTHER COWEN77ONAL METHODS.
18. ALL DISTURBED AREAS SHALL BE SEEDED WITH PERENN14L GRASSES PROMPTLY UPON COMPLETION OF
GRADING.
19. CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR ADJUSTED ALL MANHOLE, INLET AND CATCH BASIN FRAMES AND
MTE JUST PRIOR TO PAVING.
20 IN THE EVENT THAT FIELD CONDITIONS DIFFER FROM INFORMA77ON PRESENTED IN THESE PLANS, THE
CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE TO CONTRACT THE ENGINEER FOR A FIELD CHANGE PRIOR TO
CONSTRUC77ON OF THE CONTESTED ITEM.
CONSTRUCHON SEQUENCE
I. PRIOR TO CONSTRUC77ON ACTWMES, THE CONTRACTOR
SHALL SCHEDULE AND ATTEND PRE -CONSTRUCTION
CONFERENCE WITH THE CITY OF EDMONDS INSPEC71ON UNIT GWIIVG Q U, 4 A TITIES.
AND EROSION CONTROL SPECIALIST CALL TO SCHEDULE -
PRE -CON AND ALL 07HER INSPECT!ONS 24 HOURS IN CUT. 1000 Cu. Yds.
ADVANCE AT 425-771-0220, ECT. 1326. P
2. FLAG CLEARING LIM17S AND INSTALL SILT FENCE AS SHOWN. FILL: 8,500 Cu. Yds.
(GRADING QUAN77TIES WERE CALCULATED USING THE LAND
3. INSTALL ROCK CONS7RUC71ON ENTRANCE. DEVELOPMENT DESKTOP COMPOSITE METHOD. CALCULATIONS DO NOT
ACCOUNT FOR SOIL SWELUNG AND SHRINKAGE.)
4. CLEAR AND GRUB ROAD AREAS, AND STOCKPILE AREAS.
CONSTRUCT SEDIMENT POND INSTALL TEMPORARY EROSION IVOTE -
CONTROL BUP's SUCH AS INTERCEPTOR 7RENCHES, CHECK
DAMS, ETC. AND DIRECT RUNOFF TO THE SEDIMENT POND. 1. EXCESS CUT MAY BE SPREAD ON SITE.
5. GR40E AND STABILIZE PARKING AREA WfIH GRAVEL BASE. Z ANY SOIL REMOVED FROM THE SITE MUST BE HAULED TO A CITY
COVER EXPOSED SOILS WITH MULCH, HOG FUEL OR APPROVED SITE.
HYDROSEED.
J. BEFORE CONSTRUC77ON ACCEPTANCE BY THE CrTY, THE APPUCANT
6. CONSTRUCT DETEN77ON VAULT SHALL ESTABLISHED A PERMANENT VEGETA71VE GROUND COVER.
Z CONSTRUCT WATER AND STORM UTILITIES. INSTALL GAS,
POWER, TELEPHONE AND CABLE UTILITIES, AS REQUIRED. TES C. LEGE0
8. PLACE AND POUR CURBS AND GUTTERS.
co
9. PAVE PARKING AREAS WITH AT6 AND PLACE DETENTION m - - ... _ INTERCEPTOR TRENCH W/
SYSTEM INTO FULL OPERATION. --ss- ROCK CHECK DAM
10 HYDROSEED REMAINING EXPOSED SOILS AND STABILIZE
PROJECT. SF- SF- SILT FENCE
12. FLUSH STORM DRAINAGE SYSTEM AND REMOVED
SEDIMENTA77ON IN ALL CATCH BASINS AND THE VAULT.
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
13. STABILIZE ALL DISTURBED AREAS AND REMOVE ALL TE.S.C. ENTRANCE
MEASURES.
CATCH BASIN INSERT
0 PROTECTION (TYP.)
CLEARING LIM17S
0.53 CFS
633 SF
EL=412.00
EL=40ZOO
EL=41 1.00 (L=6')
700 SF (ELEV, 411)
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION,
DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISUNG U77LJTIES WHETHER SHOWN ON IHESE
PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTIL177ES AND SURVEY7NG THE HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL LOCA710M PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL
INCLUDE CALLING UTILITY LOCATE @ 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE
EXISTING UTIL171ES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY
VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCA77ONS OF SAID UTIU77ES AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WffH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
FOR:
Crff OF EDMONDS
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCHON
,PUBLIC WORKS DIRECTOR - DATE
CALL TWO (2) B USEVESS DA YS
BEFORE YOUDIG 1-800-424-5555
2
REVISIONS PER ARCHITECT
SJR
105-13-2008
1
REVISIONS PER CITY OF EDMONDS
SJR
03-14-2008
REV, NO.
DESCRIPTION
INITMLS
DATE
I EXPIRES 11/30/2008 1
MULCH &IOR STRAW MATTING
PLASTIC COVER
FLOW ARROW (EX.)
..... .....
insts
3630 COLBY AVE.,
EVERETT, WA 98201
(425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX
MF0@1NS1GffMNGHiEERWG.NET
SITE ADDRESS, 234th ST. SW & HWY. 99
EDMONDS, KA RESU
TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S. 00576700002002 JUN 23 201
S W 114, NE 114, SEC. 3 1, T. 2 7 X, R. 4 R, W. M.
A -2 @ EDMONDS COMMERCIAL
DWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY: DATE. SCALE. JOB NO.:
070443-COMM.DWG I MNF 8-30-2007 1`_-30' 1 07-0443
SHEET
TESC & GRAD17VG PLAN C3
Of
5
CBh9 TYPE248"O
RIM=428.00.*
IE=422.36
FOUND RER4R WITH NO CAP-\
1.0' E4ST AND 1.2' NORTH
OF CORNER.
FOUND REBAR AND CAP,-
LS137527 ON PROPERTY
LINE, 2.0' EAST OF
CORNER.
28LF 12* SD @O-5Z
REAR SIDEWALK
INV. 3" ADS = 427.2'-
(TO BE CONNECTED
TO THE F007ING DRAIN)
2" MIN AC PAVEMENT i Am r iol cn
L__t- 2'�-518- CSTC
4'�- 1- 114" CSBC
APPROVED SUBGRADE REFA
PA VEAENT SECTION
NIS
... ... .... .. . .
CB#8 71YPE 248"0
RIM=429.00.*
IE=421.62
CONSTRUCT CB OVER E)0S7ING PIPE
CONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOCATIONS
AND DEPTH. N077FY ENGINEER FOR
DISCREPANCIES
53LF 120 SD @12
CB#7 TYPE 248"0
SIA: 31+45.36
RIM=431.00.+
IE=414.90
00.5%-1
INING NALL-:-�
10' SEWER
EASEMENT
I
as
FOUND REW AND Ap
'EMERALD LSJO581' CON
PROPERTY LINE AT 30'
FROM CENTERLINE OF
2J47H STREET SW.
1: 12 MAX. SLO
ACP RAMP-
STA:946.�O, 13.651
LK"
FOUND CONCRETE ;,olu
Cal MA TCH TO
MONUMENT WITH 1.75" EX. CURB
BRASS DISC AND -JpP M
PUNCH, 0.3' DEEP IN POSED - C. D STA: 0+ 18
I PRO I
MONUMENT CASE FOG L E 45Z
MATC T. N 8.759'2
?LINE
N 875921" E PAINTED CENTEI i = - W 1
J�/ ofl W
J�4.29'
234TH 51
SS
SIGN
S L SD wM
SSMH kil 445.80'
8" PVC N, E, & W Q)
CTR CHANNEL = 437.90'
�CB RIM 434.48' I:p
FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH 12 " DI (E) = 431.58' CB RIM 413.67'
1.75" BRASS DISC AND PUNCH, 12 " DI (W) = 431.48'
0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE
ELEVATION = 461.63'
VARIES PER CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER OR 16" VER77CAL
CODE CURB (To MATCH EXISTING CURBING) SHALL
a -TEND TO END OF RADIUS. EXTRUDED CURB
RADIUS VARIES SHALL START AT END OF RADIUS
TYPE 2 CURB RAMP TRANSITION SLOPE LL TYPE 2 CURB RAMP
5' LONG RAMP MIN. BE 1: 12 (TYP) SHA �Z5' LONG RAMP MIN.
(SEE DEFAIL E-2.15) .,Z (SEE DETAIL E-2.15)
0�0
0 0
000.0
000 0
SIDEWALK 000
00
0 0
A( 00.0
A,�J \CONCRETE CURB AND GUTTER
\PLACE 1' WIDE TACTILE PLACE FULL DEPTH EXPANSION JOINT BETWEEN
I* BEHIND START OF RAMP CIG AND HIGH TRAFFIC LOAD GUTTER, IF WING
AND CIG ARE NOT POURED AS ONE UNIT
CURSIGUTTER AND WING FOR HIGH TRAFFIC LOAD
GUTTER MAY BE POURED AS ONE UNIT
FULL DEPTH EXPANSION JOINTS SHALL BE PLACED IF WIDTH
ACP ACP OF OPENING EXCEEDS 15'
24" CONCRETE SHALL BE CLASS J- JOOOPS1
SECTION A -A NOTE. CITY ENGINEER SHALL DETERMINE ----------
APPLICABLE COMMERCIAL TYPE ENTRANCE
BASED ON LOCATION & OTHER SITE
CONDITIONS.
0 0 0 0 00 00 0
CURB AND GUTTER SHALL BE POURED 0000000G
SEPARATELY FROM THE SIDEWALK. CITY
INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FORM WORK
PRIOR TO POUR.-
-.a- ASPHALT SURFACE
MUTI-FAMLY1COAOffiRCIAL HIGH TFAMCLOAD DRIVEWAYACCESS
4) (WIMASPHALTDRIVEWAYAPPROA
NOT TO SCALE STD OIL. E2.27
n 0
.�nn 00
DETECTABLE WARNING PATTERN AREA
A SHALL BE YELLOW.
AAMP
I t� q
r
MIN.
UAX.
6',
PLAN
A
1 518'
2 3Ar
c
B
W
1 112-
C
71le
314-
t D
0 71e .1 7/le,
EUVA77ON
FZM AW rdPIAM
DETAIL B
CUM AW CVM --
SW 1143, INE 114, SEC. 31, T 27 X, R. 4 E, W.M.
SNOHOM1SH COUNTY, WASHWGTON
, C)
5
""�11-81LLBQARD
co
V zo/
n
Ar\ ' '4
CV
CB RIM 404.32'
12 RCP (E) 402.02
Ro =41 1.0 c-b"
N
.00
30 12* SD 0 V-50%
I SCALE: I"= 30'
AR
=409.50 KEEN IBM mommumm,
=404.65 I FROM Elm olimmum
30 15 0 30 60
thirn r
- WALL DRAIN INTO C
7 'LF 1 SO 0.5oz
0
STA: 2+83.60
)0
'00
5
CT Co
PIPE
407. 2'
(N) = 404.72'
= 404.162' 420
410
ACCESSROAD PROFILE
SCALE. 1�--30' HORIZ 17=3' VERT
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON FORM WORK PRIOR TO POUR
ACCESSIBLE RAMP SMU BE POURED SEPAR4TELY
FROM CURB AND GUTTER.
6.0' 3.5'- 6. Ol
MIN MIN
C.) Rw
112' '6 6" mmo
L B-1 0 0
1 1/4 0 0
oul
0 0
0 0
NOMINAL DIMENSIONS I SWFE
.12
AM
3r
7RAC77ON GRID PATTERN
to
TAC17LE WARNING TEXTURING
r Fr
rrrrFF r
DETAIL A (TYPICAL) rrrrrrrrrrrr
wil-Al
INSTALL 112- EXIANSION
VOINT MATERAL (TYPICAL)
L- Emm
L
L SMAW
L
L
L
SAW CUT
AS REQUIRED
I' WIDE TAC71LE WARNING
STRIP (TYPICAL)
SEE DETAIL A
CTARLE WARNING PATTERNS
VCATED DOMES)
DETAIL 8
NOTE. Sw CUT As rxoum
1. AT LOC477ONS WHERE NEW RAMPS ABUT EXISTING CURB, GUTTERS, PLANTER STRIPS, AND SIDEWALKS, CONSTRUCT NEW RAMPS TO MATCH ADJACENT
SURFACES.
2. ALL CONCRETE SURFACES SHALL HAVE A LIGHT BROOM RNISH.
3 CONCRETE SHALL BE SPR4YED Wr[H A CLEAR CURING COMPOUND OR SHALL BE COVERED AND KEPT MOIST FOR 72 HOURS
4. DETECTABLE WARNING. pA77ERNs (IRuNcATFD DOMES) SMLL BE REQUIRED ON ALL PUBLIC STREETS WMI A CURB RETURN AND PRIVATE SIREErS
SERVING FIVE OR MORE L07S 7RAC71ON GRID (OW40NDS) TO BE USED AS INDIC47ED.
5. FOR NON-INTERSEC71ON CURB RAMPS ON PRIVATE PROPERTY THE STANDARD DIAMOND PATTERN AMY BE USED AS INDICATED IN DETAIL A IN E 2.22
CURB RAW TYPE 3
NOT TO SCALE STD DTL E2.16
40(
log-)
: L :
V :2
Lg+-�Ck- 0)
CL i
ckc
EXISTING
RADE 0 CIL OF RIW
R
cl
cs
Q1 zc
(f)
PROPOSED FLOW LINE
(6
w
v)
Ql)
�6
0�
'4
(6
4JO
420
410
400
9+00 10+00 11+00
234th STSWFROATAGEPROFILE
SCALE. l--io' HORIZ 1�=3' VERT
30, 'tit
18,
4,50' 0*5' EX. PAVED LANE EX. PAVED LANE
SAWCUT - HEAT AND TACK
SIDEWALK CURB EDGES WITH SE4LER SS-1 (TYP-)
2Z
40 CONCRETEJ 3- COMPACTED DEPTH CLASS B ASPHALT (2 LIFTS REQUIRED)
4" COMPACTED DEPTHA 4- COMPACTED DEPTH ATB (2 LIFTS REQUIRED)
GRAVEL BORROW (TYP.) 3" CRUSHED SURFACING TOP COURSE
12' COMPACTED SUBGR4DE 95% MOO
234TH STREET SWFRONTAGE SECTION
om
1. CURB AND GU77ER SHALL NOTBE PLACED OVER THE TOP OF WATER VALVES.
2. THE FOG LINE SHALL BE REPANTED.AND MATCH EXISTING.
w
5:
1. C14
420
410
PVf STA = 1+76.60
P/l. L
PVf ELEV = 414.96
'cS,
04
c�
W)
1+
A.D. = -8.99
+ C6
C5
K = 11.12
100' vc
cs
0
+
CL
cf)
,,-EXISIING GRADE
0 CL
co
C14
CN
+
/Z
PW STA
2+51.60
Lj
Q
j�s
PV( ELB
407.46
A.D.
8.99
K
5.56
2
5('
VC
SED GRADE @ CL-
-1.007.
c�
C,4
A
cli
co
co
+
C14
LL
+
LN
E5
Z
0)
CN4
-00
co
ll�
C14
cy)
N
Lci
ll�
C'i
Q)
Q)
TOP OF
WALL
EL=430.70
EXISTING GRADE
BOTTOM OF
WALL
EL=41 .30
CB#7 TYPE 2-48"0
STA- 31+45.36
RIM=431.00-+
IE=414.90
cm
STA-jO+0O
RIM=408.00
IE=405.65
Lo
31+00
C& #6 - #7 PROFILE
SCALE. l--io' HORIZ VERT
4JO
420
410
30+00
DRMENSLEPROFILE
SCALE.- l--io' HORIZ l--3' VERT
EXPIRES 11/30/2008
UTILHYCONFLICTNOTE.-
CA OTION. -
41
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION,
DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTIL177ES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL
AND VERTICAL LOCA71ON PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL
INCLUDE CALLING U77LITY LOCATE 0 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE
EXIS77NG U77LITIES AT LOCA77ONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY
VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST LOCA77ONS OF SAID U71LITIES AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
FOR: , PUBLIC WORKS DDZECTOR DATE
2
REVISIONS PER ARCHITECT
SUR
105-13-20
1
REVISIONS PER CITY OF EDMONDS
SUR
03-14-2008
REV. NO.
DESCRIPTION
IN177ALS
DATE
ins I
3630 COLBY AVE.,
EVERETT, WA 98201
(425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX
lNF0@lNSlGHTENGH4EEMG.NET
SITE ADDRESS. 2J4th ST. SW & HWY. 99
EDMONDS, WA RESUB
TAX ACCOUN . T NO.'S. 00576700002002 jUN 23 2008
ON
SW 114, NE 114, SEC. 31, T. 27 N., R. 4 E., W.M.
A-2 @ EDMONDS COMMERCIAL
BWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY: DATE. SCALE. JOB NO.:
97044J-COMM.0 MNF 8-J 1'"�=Jol 07-0443
SHEET
C4
ROAD& DRA17VAGE PLAN. of
5
SW 114, AE 114, SEC. 319 T 27 Xq R. 4 E, W.M.
SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
C'
ITI=COMFLETNOTE:
CA MON. -
ME CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION,
DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING U77LITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE U77LMES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL
AND VER77CAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL
INCLUDE CALLING U17LITY LOCATE @ 1-800-424-5555 POTHOLING ALL OF THE
EXISTING URLITIES AT LOCA77ONS OF NEW UTILITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY
VERIFY WHErHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST. LOCATIONS OF SAID UTILITIES AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON 7HE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. IF CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
10' MIN.
z24' 0 SOLID LOCKING LID W14- TOP ELEV=412.0
FRAME & LEVELING BRICKS (TYP.) 5'xlO' GRATED ACCESS DOOR OR.
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED 0.50' MIN. COVER PANEL USE P.I.P.E., INC. GRATE
5496 OR EQUIVALENT
4
.4 4
—0 0
) 0 D ( *
—000
0 OVERFLOW EL=409.56
00\ 17 _\�,
0 - - - - -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 100 YR. EL=409.56 —
0 0
0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 10 YR. EL=409.37 - - - - - - - - - - -
0 0
0 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 2 YR. EL=409.27 - - - - - - - - - - -
o
—0
- 0 Nz
-0 0
0
c D64D STORAGE EL=406.00
-0
0 N
__o
LEVEL 04
EL= 403.00
.4 4
4
YA LILT SECTION B-B
N.T.S.
W4
24- 0 SOLID LOCKING LID W14-
FRAME & LEVELING BRICKS (TYP)
UNLESS OTHERWISE NOTED
HANDLE WITH
LOCK PIN
ADJUSTABLE LOCK
HOOK W1 LOCK
SCREW
Q 0
0 0
LEVEL LINE
0 0 09
0
0
FRONT SIDE
LIFT HANDLE SHALL BE ATTACHED PER
MANUFACTURER'S RECOMMENDATIONS.
ALTERNATES ARE ACCEPTABLE PROVIDED MATERIAL SPECIFICATIONS ARE
MET AND FLANGE BOLT PATTERN MATCHES
CLEWOUTISHEARGAM
ALM" OPENNG
OF GA TE
SIX EVENLY SPACED HOLES ON 10
318- BOLT CIRCLE FOR BOLTING
TO FLANGE CONNECTION.
0.50' MIN. COVER
0 0
0
0 0 0
0 0 0
0 0
5'XIO' GRATED ACCESS DOOR
TOP ELEV=412.0
10' MIN.
0,0,
0
0 0
0 0 0
24' 0
> 0 0 c
0 0 C
C7----
4
'IE (/N)=40ZOO
0
0
_/o(
MIRA = 0 <_
OR EQUIVALENT c 0<)-
Ch
i 7E
)o
0-
0-
0
0
0
c
0
0
c
D.S. EL=406.00
0
6" PERFORATED -14
(D
0
WALL DRAIN 0
LEVEL
0
c
EL=403.00
--r-
8.
1
VAULTSECTIONA-A
N.T.S.
- 9"xl"xl2ga GALV. STRAPS TACK
'D TO WIRE MESH SECURE STRAINER
F.T.O.P. TEE W1 GALV. I 6xl-
EEr METAL SCREWS, 2 PER STRAP.
- ------ — 112" x 112" x 16go.
CALV. WIRE MESH
SOLID 12ga GALV. BOTTOM PLATE
TACK WELDED TO BOTTOM OF MESH.
NOTE. STRAINER MATERIAL TO BE SAME AS CONTROL STRUCTURE
r3 _'� S TRNMR DETA IL
',,,,j4
EL=411.50
EL=410.50
12- 1E (IN)=404.50
I I — EL=411.50
\D c
U ( EL=410.50
000,
oc> 00
0 0 0
0 C 0
0
POLYPROPYLENE STEPS
C (TYP.) - ALL ACCESSES
0 0
0 0
MIRA DRAIN
'o OR EQUIVALENT
'00
c
12" OUTLET ]E=406.00
6" PERFORATED
WALL DR41N
4' MIN.
48" SQUARE 04ST IN PLACE SUMP
rnz% " T YTTITV r
N.T.S.
___�7 - - - - - - - - - -
ORIFICE 12 4.63- OR 4-518-
EL=409.37
(ORIFICE TO SHARP -EDGED,
SHOP -DRILLED)
CLEANOUT GATE
cl,
CN
POLYPROPYLENE SAFETY
STEPS AND LADDER
FROP
LIFT HANDLE
POLYPROPYLENE SAFETY
_—STEPS AND LADDER
OVERFLOW
EL = 409.56
RISER PIPE
-- PIPE SUPPORT
31014- STEEL
12" SD
OUTLET PIPE
EL. = 406.00
ORIFICE il: Db4.=0.59" OR 9116"
(ORIFICE TO BE SHARP -EDGED,
,______SHOP-DRlLLE0) EL.=404.00
STRAINER
FLOW RESTRICTOR
4 N.TS.
TYPE 1
48" MH SUMP
CL
N 1w
L
T
If
ALA
4 ".4. 'A. X,
%A it W
-fE
.41
f
WE
,-,o al. wit"
41
mm. mm-'T
tmv
IR, MY
Y. DETAI
MLITYCONFLICTNOEE:
CA MOA I -
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFYING THE LOCATION,
DIMENSION, AND DEPTH OF ALL EXISTING UTILITIES WHETHER SHOWN ON THESE
PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE UTILITIES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL
AND VER77CAL LOCATION PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. THIS AND THEN SHALL
INCLUDE CALLING UTIL17Y LOCATE @ 1-800-424-5555 P07HOLING ALL OF THE
EXISTING U77LITIES AT LOCATIONS OF NEW U17LJTY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY
VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST LOCATIONS OF SAID U71LIlIES AS
SHOWN ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON 714E LIWERIFIED PUBLIC
INFORMATION AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIATION. F CONFLICTS SHOULD OCCUR,
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL CONSULT WITH INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY TO
RESOLVE ALL PROBLEMS PRIOR TO PROCEEDING WITH CONSTRUCTION.
CUL 7WO (2) B USEVESS DA YS
3EFORE YOUDIG 1-800-424-5555
SW 114, AE 114, SEC. 31, T. 27 Np R. 4 R, W.M.
SNOHOAHSH COUNTY, WASHINGTON
t
41
SO,
RD
FOUND REBAR WITH NO CAP
1.0' EAST AND 1.2' NORTH 8759,21 E 260.61�
Or CORNER. IN
SO -
FOUND REBAR AND CAP,
LS#37527 ON PROPERTY
LINE, 2.0 E4ST OF
CORNER. //DCTA r
REAR SIDEWALK -
INV. 3" ADS = 427.2'—
H.
RETAINING NAtL
i o' SEWER
EASEMENT
as
PROPOSED
44*1' SIDE SEWER
0 2% MIN.
(lyp.)
STA: 1+78.73, 6.13 R
RVSTALL.
1-8"D.L45'BEND(MJ)
wATIRUSTBLOCKING1
7\
3,3310 S.F.
rh
4)
CB RIM 4
04.32'
12" RCP (E) = 40 0
L4—
4�
vicvvff Y MAP
SCALE. 1�=2000'
C)
)B Lake
allinger
A.
E
Al Q UIPMEA T A 10 PR 0 CED URE
METHOD OF SURVEY:
If
cb* SURVEY PERFORMED BY FIELD TRAVERSE
INSTRUMENTATION.
LEICA TCR4 1105 ROB077C ELECTRONIC TOTAL STATION
If
FF=415.PO
RETAIL B
I A/ PRECISION.
mo i;�
o Wv MEETS OR EXCEEDS STATE STANDARDS WAC 332-130-090
9,OODS.F.//
'4 SCAILE: 1 30' BASIS OF BEARING -
THE MONUMENTED CENTERLINE OF 234TH STREEr NE,
AS THE BEARING OF N 875921" E
LEM ROM ommimmm
30 15 0 30 60
AND PUNCH, 0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE,
RM IN CENTERLINE OF 234TIt 320' WEST OF SITE.
CONCRETE MONUMENT W17H 1.75' BRASS DISC
ELEVATION 461.63'
WATER LEGEND ql�
METERS DA
EXIS71NG MONUMENT (AS SHOWN) N4VD 88
1-1,
_'N
PROPOSED MONUMENT EXUVEER SURVEYOR
-fir �E=(IN)400.43 INSIGHT ENGINEERING COMPANY PACIRC coAsT SURVEYS, INC.
I I ii/LF 8 IE=(OUT)400.J3 SEC77ON CORNER 3630 COLBY AVENUE P.O. BOX 3286
I I I L.NCLOSUR)E CONSTRUCT SSMH FOR EXIST + EVERETT, WA 98201 EVERETT, WA 98213
8"DI PIPECONTRACTOR TO VERIFY LOC47ION 0 FOUND REBARICAP OR I.P. (IRON PIPE) CONTACT. BRIAN R. KALAB (425) 508-4951
myu ur-rin. ivulirl tivbl1vrzK rurc TOR TO BE REMOVED (-tzz)j oui—aam? rAA (IZDJ JW—,70//
n
STA: 1+39.48,3.77R D ClES_ FAX (425) JOJ-9362
INSTALL: P.O.B. POINT OF BEGINNING
1-8"DJ. 45' BEND (MJ)
wlFBRUSTBLOCKlNG W STA; 2+83.60 EOP EDGE OF PAVEMENT ARCHITECT OWNER
THOMAS THOMPSON M CLAY alTERPRISES LLC.
4
29619 15th AVENUE NE 2002 196th ST SW
IQ CB STORM DRAIN CATCH BASIN
STANWOOD, WA 98292 LYNNWOOD, WA 98036
SDMH STORM DRAIN MANHOLE (J60) 629-J985
FAX (360) 629-54J5
QSSMH SANITARY SEWER MANHOLE
L If 0 CO
SANITARY SEWER CLEAN OUT APPLICAAT
4-
dPP POWER POLE A-Z 0 EDMONDS LLC.
2J72J 112th PL W
If FF=�14.00 E— UTIL17Y POLE ANCHOR SHORELINE, WA 98020
4
(206) 542-4411
m wM WATER METER FAX (206) 542-9654
�U RETAIL/ A
.t.d If
>< wv WATER VALVE
B RIM 407.52' LEGAL DESCRIPTION
Iz
4,60071S.Fe STA:2+4a3l,9.40W FMB MAILBOX
12" RCP (E) 404 62'
If JIVSTALL.
PARCEL A
1-5114"EH.ASSY. Vi7TI18'�x6"FLTEE t� FH FIRE HYDRANT (2 NOZZLE)
THE SOUTH 220 FEET OF THE PART OF TRACT 20 LYING WESTERLY OF
14"STORZ.FM. TYPE I NGFA SIGN STATE ROAD THE SOUTHERLY POINT THEREOF BEING THE INTERSECTION
OF THE WESTERLY LINE OF S41D ROAD AND THE WEST UNE OF S410
J. I-espooL
ELOCATE EX. 2-8" GATE VALVES (F!Lx&M NO PARKING SIGN TRACT 20, SKELTON'S LAKE MCALEER 5 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO
POWER wIIMUSTBLOCKING -------- THE PLAT THEREOF RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 21,
FOUND RERAR AND CAP R.O.W.- RIGHT-OF-WAY
'EMERALD LS30581' ON Q;8/ L RECORDS OF SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON.
ROPERTY LINE AT JO' CENTERLINE
P R -:.o
FROM CENTERLINE OF STA: 18+55.07, 42.Jl EXISTING DffCH PARCEL B
234TH STREET SW. z MATCH TO EX. CURB &
1: 12 MAX, SLO
SIDEWALK
ACP RAMP, 4 — — — — — — — — BUILDING SETBACK LINE (BSBL) THE SOUTH JJ8.16 FEET OF THAT PORTION OF TRACT 21, SKELTON'S
LAKE MCALEER 5 ACRE TRACTS, ACCORDING TO THE PLAT THEREOF
9T 6.50, 1J 651 PROPERTY UNE RECORDED IN VOLUME 6 OF PLATS, PAGE 21, RECORDS OF
FOUND CONCRETE A �9_+ 4 cz,
MONUMENT WITH 1. 75 MATCH TO SNOHOMISH COUNTY, WASHINGTON, LYING EAST OF THE WEST 183.00
pp EX. CURB I �Aln� 110
BRASS DISC AND _0� X—X— EXIST7NG FENCE LINE FEET OF SAID TRACT.
PUNCH, 0.3' DEEP IN 7 7 mm (2) Wv 2zl-z--41111-
PROPOSED 0 W STA: 0+18 =!�Z�EDGE OF EXIS77NG PAVEMENT
MONUMENT CASE t ALL SITUATED IN THE COUNTY OF SNOHOMISH, STATE OF WASHINGTON.
FOG LINE 7 XXX - - - - - - - - - - - 1XISTING CONTOURS
N 87-59'21 E ENTERUNE MATCH EXIST. N _�75 ;2�� �_±5 -34
IPAINTED W I w
j!�4.29 - ------- Fxx_x� PROPOSED CONTOURS
TER INE OF ROW w i —,
YV ?34TH EETSW S PRE-EXISTING DR41NAGE PA77ERN OLYWIC VIEW WATER AND SEWER DISTRICT
SS
S'� I SIGN SSMH RIM 411.54' APPROVED FOR WATER AAD SEWER CONSTRUCTION
SD P Wm 7 t 8- PVC N,'S,.,� PROPOSED STORM
SSMH = �445.80 CTR C NNEL 401.0�1
PROPOSED SEWER
8 " PVC N, E, & W
Q3
CTR CHANNEL = 4J7,90' PROPOSED WATER
CB RIM 4J4.48' V'v
FOUND CONCRETE MONUMENT WITH 12 DI (E) = 431.58' CB RIM 413.67' DISTRICT ENGINEER OR ASSIGNEE DATE
1.75" BRASS DISC AND PUNCH, 12" DI (W) = 431.48'
0.5' DEEP IN MONUMENT CASE.
ELEVATION = 461.6J'
'0MYECTTOMST[NG 8" Cl WATER AlAW
- 8 7x8 " DI TEE (MfxFL)
- 8 " GA TE VALVES (,FLxM
-8"DlNZPPLECUTT0FlT
- 8 " D. L SLEE VES
SANHAR Y SEWER NOTES:
1. CONTRACTOR SHALL N07IFY OWNERS OF ALL AFFECTED UNDERGROUND
UTILITIES FOR FIELD LOCA71ONS THEIR FACILITIES.
2. SIDE SEWERS SHALL BE PLACED ON UNDISTURBED SOIL. NA71VE MATERML
CAN BE USED FOR BACKFILL PROVIDED SHARP ROCKS ARE KEPT OFF THE
PIPE DURING RACKFILL PLACEMENT.
J. SIDE SEWERS SHALL BE INSTALLED ACCORDING TO CITY OF EDMONDS
STANDARDS FOR SUCH INSTALLATION.
4. SIDE SEWER STUBS ON EACH LOT SHALL BE MARKED WITH A 2"x4" LOCA77ON
AT THE END WITH POR77ON ABOVE GROUND PAINTED WHITE WITH BLACK
LETTERS LABELED "SEWER" WITH DEPTH. TV. AND PRESS TEST.
5. ALL 4" DL4. CLEANOUTS TO BE RAISED TO GRADE WITH CAST IRON FRAME AND
GRATE (LOCKING TYPE).
MOTES:
UPGRADE PUBLIC FH STEAMER PORTS TO 114 TURN
(STORZ) UNIVERSAL FITTINGS AS REQUIRED.
3630 COLBY AVE.,
EVERETT, WA 98201
(425) 303-9363 (425) 303-9362 FAX
R%TF0@lNSlGffMNGWEEPJNG.NET
SITE ADDRESS. 234th ST. SW & HWY. 99
2 REVISIONS PER ARCH17ECT SUR 05-13-2008 EDMONDS, WA
1 REWSIONS PER CITY OF EDMONDS SJR 03-14-2008 RESUB
REV. NO. DESCRIP77ON INITIALS DATE TAX ACCOUNT NO.'S.- 00576700002002 JUN 23 2008
BLWGEff
OF 6MW'a
0 WA SW 114, NE 114, SEC. 3 1, T. 27 X, R. 4 E., W.M.
A-2 @ EDMONDS COM4ERCIAL
DWG FILENAME DESIGNED BY. DATE,* I SCALE' JOB NO.:
%'AA
03649 A 070443-COMM.D MNF B-30-2007 l--30' 07-0443
0 S Tr,
'101VAL SHEEF
swi
EXPIRES 11/30/2008 WATER & SEWER PLAN Of
1