The URL can be used to link to this page

344 SUNSET AVE N.PDFIIIIIIIIIIIIII 13359 344 SUNSET AVE N PLANNING DATA SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL Name: Date: 1 113hy Site Address: 3qq Ave— Tax Parcel: a-7-0S1,3,001bC600 Project Description: Plan Check#: %L.1DA0\J 11-fo Reduced Site Plan Prov ided: NO) Zoning: Map Page: corner Lot: (YES /�D Flag Lot: (YES AD Critical Areas Determination #: Lua- -3/ 'Study Required e.; 5 x-s -acd Are -a.- CA No Z 1q. El Waiver SEPA Determination: Exe-,.�p* Exempt' Needed (for over 500 cubic yards of grading) El Fee El Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form Required tbacks Street: �ide: Side: TRea r: sl�) Actual5etbacks Street: (Alw� 'a n1 J- Side: (NE) 4 Side: Rear: 4- Detached Structures: sx,� El Rockeries: Alore 21 Fences/Trellises: Ex---A�. jPq� Bay Windows/Proje�inge�Odulation: Alor%c" Stairs/Deck: ly" Wtk ",jcosqred oc*4 fra,,V 4 om el --iL Buildin Height Datum Point, Datum Elevation: \00 I Maximum Height Allowed: Actual Heigh t: Other Parking Required: Parking Provided: Lot Area: Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Propos4? 7 CJ 30 st'a - lxa. 0 Lot Coverage Calculations: "Is 6 '1� ADU Created: (YES Subdivision: Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES Comments Plan Review By: Z�e e-1- 61�' Planning Data Form 07-14-09 APPLICATION CARDNo . ................................. for The City of Edmonds SEDE SEWER PERY" OUTSIDE 0 INSIDE [-] REPAIRS n EASEMENT No . ................................. OWNER ---------- ....................................... CONTRACTOR ..... Y .... e-Fllf. .1 ...................................................... PERMIT N . ... ........ ... STREET .............................................. TE LOT -No . ............................................. HOUSE No. AVENL 13LOCK No . ............................................... /�74 "pe cz.. --o/e* rro /If gD jt-7-4 Xj ;e�Xe-w 5"Y -e 40 7-h 7'A'r w"1Y 1?,Fy APPROVED SEP 15 1965 ........... 0 9-� 1� 1 141 71�0-' ;e ixi c;l T J�r Date BACKFILL WORK ORDER ISSUED ................................... DEPOSIT, SEWER WORK ORQER ISSUED .......................................... Approved: .................... DATE ................. ILLJ —j W--.M LL c/) 13Y.... ................. CITY OF EDMONDS Call PRospect 6-1107 when work CIVIC CENTER —WATER-SEWER DEPARTMENT is ready for Inspection. (No Inapec- Mons Saturday, Sunday or hoildn".) N2 1291 SIDE SEWER PERMIT ADDRESS----------------_------- ... Avenue .................. ............................................................................................................ I_. OWNER........... . .. ............................................ CONTRACTOR ...... Ray ... Allen ................................................. Permission Is granted .......... 19 ... U, for ...................... days, to REPAIR or CONNECT a side sewer with City Sewers in accordance with application on file and governing ordinances. ATTENTION IS 40ALLED TO THE FOLLOWING: NOTE No. I —The owners of the property may obtaln a permit to construct sewer Inside property line. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to construct side sewer In street area. Do not cover any portion of sewer before it has been inspected. NOTE No. 2--Obtain full information regarding Ordinance 11.16.030 and Regulations governing side sewers when you get permit. NOTE No. 3—Top of side sewer must have at least 30 inches coverage at property line and 12 inches Inside property line; minimum grade of 20/0. No bends in grade sharper than % will be permitted. NOTE No. 4—Trenches In street must be water settled and surface of street restored to original condition. Contractors shall be responsible for failure due to Improper work which may develop within one year of completion. 140TE No. &--It to unlawful to alter or do any other work than is provided for in the permit, or to do any work on the main sewer or Its ap- purtenances except to insert the pipe Into the wye. Ij GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY Proposed Residential Addition 344 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington RECEIVED OEC o 9 2013 DEVEL&MENT SERVICES couNTER This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for the site of the proposed residential addition to be located in Edmonds. We understand that the residence addition is in the planning stage, and plans were not made available to us. We understand that a second story will be added to the residence. We expect that some expansion of the residence footprint is possible. We understand that the City of Edmonds informed the project architect that the site is within a liquefaction hazard area, and that a geotechnical engineer needed to evaluate the liquefaction hazard at the site. If the scope of the project changes from what we have described above, we should be provided with revised plans in order to determine if modifications to the recommendations and conclusions of this report are warranted, SITE CONDITIONS SURFACE The Vicinity Map, Plate 1, illustrates the general location of the site. The rectangular site is bordered to the north, east, and south by residential lots, and to the west by Sunset Avenue North. West of Sunset Avenue North the ground surface slopes down to a railroad, to a beach along Puget Sound. The ground surface within the site slopes slightly down toward the west. A single -story residence constructed over a crawlspace is located in the western portion of the site. An asphalt driveway is located along the northern portion of the site, and accesses a garage located on the east side of the residence. A wood deck is located along the west side of the residence. Most of the residence has wood siding but the lower half of the west side of the residence is faced with brick. We observed one diagonal crack in this brick that had a width of less than one -eighth inch. SUBSURFACE The subsurface conditions were explored by drilling two test borings at the approximate locations shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on the proposed construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the scope of work outlined in our proposal. The borings were drilled on November 21, 2013 using a track -mounted, hollow -stem auger drill. Samples were taken at 2.5- and 5-foot Intervals with a standard penetration sampler. This split -spoon sampler, which has a 2-inch outside diameter, is driven into the soil wIth a 140-pound hammer falling 30 inches. The number of blows required to advance the sampler a given distance is an indication of the soil density or consistency. A geotechnical engineer from our staff observed the drilling process, logged the test borings, and obtained representative samples of the soil encountered. The Test Boring Logs are attached as Plates 3 and 4. Soil Conditions The test borings encountered approximately 5 feet of loose to medium -dense fill that consisted of silty sand with pockets of topsoil and dark brown silty sand with organics. Below the fill material the test GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Goebel December 2, 2013 JN 13434 Page 2 borings encountered medium -dense to dense silty sand with gravel. The silty sand with gravel became very dense at a depth of 10 feet, and extended to the full depth of Test Boring 1. Below the silty sand with gravel, Test Boring 2 encountered very dense sand at a depth of 16 feet., In addition to the test borings, we excavated several hand holes near the foundations to evaluate soil conditions below the foundations. We were unable to excavate hand holes on the north side of the residence because the ground surface is covered with a driveway and access to the west side of the residence was limited by a wood deck. We excavated one hand hole on the east side of the garage and found that the garage is supported on a slab -on -grade. We also excavated three hand holes on the south side of the residence and advanced the holes to the base of the foundation, which was about 3 feet below the ground surface. Using a % inch diameter probe rod, we evaluated the soil at the base of the foundations. With moderate effort, we probed 3 inches, 12 inches, and 18 inches Into the subgrade soil; which is an indication that the existing foundation Is bearing on relatively loose soils. Groundwater Conditions No groundwater seepage was observed in the test borings, which were left open for only a short time period. Therefore, the lack of seepage levels on the logs may not accurately represent the absence of transient water seepage. It should be noted that groundwater levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors. We anticipate that groundwater could be found between the near -surface weathered soil and the underlying denser soil. The stratification lines on the logs represent the approximate boundaries between soil types at the exploration locations. The actual transition between soil types may be gradual, and subsurface conditions can vary between exploration locations. The logs provide specific subsurface information only at the locations tested. If a transition In soil type occurred between samples in the borings, the depth of the transition was interpreted. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated on the test boring logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during drilling. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS GENERAL THIS SECTION CONTAINS A SUMMARY OF OUR STUDY AND FINDINGS FOR THE PURPOSES OF A GENERAL OVERVIEW ONLY. MORE SPECIFIC RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS ARE CONTAINED IN THE REMAINDER OF THIS REPORT. ANY PARTY RELYING ON THIS REPORT SHOULD READ THE ENTIRE DOCUMENT. The test borings conducted for this study encountered medium -dense to dense native soil at a depth of about 5 feet. This material Is not liquefiable and is suitable for the support of residence foundations. However, our limited evaluation of conditions below the existing southern foundation found up to about 1.5 feet of loose soil below foundations. Furthermore, the observed crack. in the brick facing on the west side of the residence may be the result of foundation settlement due to the presence of loose soil below the foundation. Site conditions prevented our ability to evaluate conditions below the remainder of the residence foundations, so we do not know if loose soil underlies other residence foundations. Due to settlement concerns from the weight of the additional level, we recommend that the existing foundations be underpinned with concrete -filled plinths to transfer the building loads to the medium -dense native soils. This will avoid unacceptable post construction settlements. The over -excavations should be filled with concrete and will need to be verified by the geotechnical engineer. The excavations need not be continuous if the project structural engineer determines that the existing foundation can span areas of loose soil between isolated improved areas. The project structural engineer should determine the required size and spacing of these concrete -filled excavations based on the bearing capacities in this report and the foundation loading and strength. In our opinion, stormwater infiltration at the site is not feasible due to the presence of dense silty sand close to the ground surface. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Goebel JN 13434 December 2, 2013 Page 3 The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the weather conditions that are encountered. While site clearing will expose a large area of bare soil, the erosion potential on the site is relatively low due to the gentle slope of the ground. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the downslope sides of any cleared areas. Rocked construction access roads should be extended into the site to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, these roads should follow the alignment of planned pavements, and trucks should not be allowed to drive off of the rock -covered areas. Cut slopes and soil stockpiles should be covered with plastic during wet weather. Following rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. The drainage and/or waterproofing recommendations presented in this report are intended only to prevent active seepage from flowing through concrete walls or slabs. Even in the absence of active seepage into and beneath structures, water vapor can migrate through walls, slabs, and floors from the surrounding soil, and can even be transmitted from slabs and foundation walls due to the concrete curing process. Water vapor also results from occupant uses, such as cooking and bathing. Excessive water vapor trapped within structures can result in a variety of undesirable conditions, including, but not limited to, moisture problems with flooring systems, excessively molst air within occupied areas, and the growth of molds, fungi, and other biological organisms that may be harmful to the health of the occupants. The designer or architect must consider the potential vapor sources and likely occupant uses, and provide sufficient ventilation, either passive or mechanical, to prevent a build up of excessive water vapor within the planned structure. Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be allowed to review the final development plans to verify that the recommendations presented in this report are adequately addressed In the design. Such a plan review would be additional work beyond the current scope of work for this study, and it may include revisions to our recommendations to accommodate site, development, and geotechnical constraints that become more evident during the review process. SEISMIC CONSIDERATIONS In accordance with the International Building Code (IBC), the site soil profile within 100 feet of the ground surface is best represented by Site Class Type C (Very Dense Soil and Soft Rock). As noted in the USGS website, the mapped spectral acceleration value for a 0.2 second (S,,) and 1.0 second period (Si) equals 1.06g and 0,35g, respectively. The IBC states that a site -specific seismic study need not be performed provided that the peak ground acceleration be equal to SE)s/2.5, where SDs Is determined in ASCE 7. It is noted that SDS 18 equal to 2/3Sms. Sms equals F,, times Ss, where Fa is determined in Table 11.4-1. For our site, Fa = 1.0. Thus, the calculated peak ground acceleration that we utilized for the seismic -related parameters of this report equals 0.28g. The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their dense nature. CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil, or on structural fill placed above this competent native soil. See the section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill beneath structures. We recommend that continuous and individual spread footings have minimum widths of 16 and 24 inches, respectively. Exterior footings should also be bottomed at least 18 Inches below the lowest adjacent finish ground surface for protection against frost and erosion. The local building codes should be reviewed to determine if different footing widths or embedment depths are required. Footing subgrades must be cleaned of loose or disturbed soil prior'to pouring concrete. Depending upon site and equipment constraints, this may require removing the disturbed soil by hand. An allowable bearing pressure of 3,500 pounds per square foot (psf) is appropriate for footings supported on competent native soil. A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when considering GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Goebel December 2, 2013 JN 13434 Page 4 short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is anticipated that the total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent native soil, or on structural fill up to 5 feet in thickness, will be about one -inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -half -inch in a distance of 30 feet along a continuous footing with a uniform load. Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between the foundation and the bearing soil, or by passive earth pressure acting on the vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For the latter condition, the foundation must be either poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level, well -compacted fill. We recommend using the following ultimate values for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading: ULTIMATE PARAMETER VALUE Coefficient of Friction 0.40 Passive Earth Pressure 350 pcf Where: (1) pcf is pounds per cubic foot, and (11) passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping, the passive earth pressure given, above will not be appropriate. We recommend maintaining a safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above ultimate values. EXCA VA TIONS Excavation slopes should not exceed the limits specified in local, state, and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts to a depth of about 4 feet may be attempted vertically in unsaturated soil, If there are no indications of slope instability, However, vertical cuts should not be made near property boundaries, or existing utilities and structures. Based upon Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 296, Part N, the soil at the subject site would generally be classified as Type B. Therefore, temporary cut slopes greater than 4 feet in height should not be excavated at an inclination steeper than 1:1 (Horizontal:Vertical), extending continuously between the top and the bottom of a cut. The above-recom mended temporary -slope inclination is based on the conditions exposed in our explorations, and on what has been successful at other sites with similar soil conditions. It is possible that variations in soil and groundwater conditions will require modifications to the inclination at which temporary slopes can stand. Temporary cuts are those that will remain unsupported for a relatively short duration to allow for the construction of foundations, retaining walls, or utilities. Temporary cut slopes should be protected with plastic sheeting during wet weather. It is also important that surface water be directed away from temporary slope cuts. The cut slopes should also be backfilled or retained as soon as possible to reduce the potential for instability. Please note that sand or loose soil can cave suddenly and without warning. Excavation, foundation, and utility contractors should be made especially aware of this potential danger. These recommendations may need to be modified if the area near the potential cuts has been disturbed in the past by utility installation, or if settlement -sensitive utilities are located nearby. GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FiLL All building and pavement areas should be stripped of surface vegetation, topsoil, organic soil, and other deleterious material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill, but they could be used in non-structural areas, such as landscape beds. Structural fill is defined as any fill, including utility backfill, placed under, or close to, a building, behind permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soil needs to support loads, All structural fill should be placed In horizontal lifts with a moisture content at, or near, the optimum moisture GEOTECH CONSULTANTS. INC. Goebel December 2, 2013 JN 13434 Page 5 content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture content that results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction process. The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type selected, the compaction equipment used, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. The loose lift thickness should not exceed 12 inches. We recommend testing the fill as it is placed. If the fill is not sufficiently compacted, it can be recompacted before another lift is placed. This eliminates the need to remove the fill to achieve the required compaction. The following table presents recommended relative compactions for structural fill: Beneath footings, slabs 95% or walkways Filled slopes and behind 90% retainina walls 95% for upper 12 inches of Beneath pavements subgrade; 90% below that I level �1 Where: Minimum Relative Compaction Is the ratio, expressed In percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D 1557-91 (Modified Proctor). Use of On -Site Soil If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soil is wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rain and the potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soil is generally silty and therefore moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult during wet weather, or when the moisture content of this soil exceeds the optimum moisture content. Moisture -sensitive soil may also be susceptible to excessive softening and "pumping" from construction equipment, or even foot traffic, when the moisture content is greater than the optimum moisture content. It may be beneficial to protect subgrades with a layer of imported sand or crushed rock to limit disturbance from traffic. Structural fill that will be placed in wet weather should consist of a coarse, granular soil with a silt or clay content of no more than 5 percent. The percentage of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of soil passing the three -quarter -inch sieve. LIMITATIONS The conclusions and recommendations contained in this report are based on site conditions as they existed at the time of our exploration and assume that the soil and groundwater conditions encountered in the test borings are representative of subsurface conditions on the site. If the subsurface conditions encountered during construction are significantly different from those observed in our explorations, we should be advised at once so that we can review these conditions and reconsider our recommendations where necessary. Unanticipated conditions are commonly encountered on construction sites and cannot be fully anticipated by merely taking samples in test borings. Subsurface conditions can also vary between exploration locations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require making additional expenditures to attain a properly constructed project. It Is recommended that the owner consider providing a contingency fund to accommodate such potential extra costs and risks. This is a standard recommendation for all projects. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Goebel December 2, 2013 JN 13434 Page 6 This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Thomas Goebel and his representatives for specific application to this project and site. Our recommendations and conclusions are based on observed site materials and engineering analyses. Our conclusions and recommendations are professional opinions derived in accordance with current standards of practice within the scope of our services and within budget and time constraints. No warranty is expressed or implied. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions, and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for consideration in design. Our services also do not include assessing or minimizing the potential for biological hazards, such as mold, bacteria, mildew and fungi in either the existing or proposed site development. ADDiTIONAL SERVICES In addition to reviewing the final plans, Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechn[cal consultation, testing, and observation services during construction. This is to confirm that subsurface conditions are consistent with those indicated by our exploration, to evaluate whether earthwork and foundation construction activities comply with the general intent of the recommendations presented in this report, and to provide suggestions for design changes in the event subsurface conditions differ from those anticipated prior to the start of construction. However, our work would not include the supervision or direction of the actual work of the contractor and its employees or agents. Also, job and site safety, and dimensional measurements, will be the responsibility of the contractor. During the construction phase, we will provide geotechnical observation and testing services when requested by you or your representatives. Please be aware that we can only document site work we actually observe. It is still the responsibility of your contractor or on -site construction team to verify that our recommendations are being followed, whether we are present at the site or not. The following plates are attached to complete this report: Plate 1 Vicinity Map Plate 2 Site Exploration Plan Plates 3 - 4 Test Boring Logs We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. 4\ 36094�9 ("ISTBA TRC/JHS: jyb Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Thor Christensen, P.E. Senior Engineer I James H. Associate Strange, Jr., P.E. GEOTECH ?ONSULTANTS, INC. SITE GEOTECH CONSUUfANTS, INC. (Source: Microsoft Streets and Trips, 2004) VICINITY NUP 344 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Job No: Date: Plate: 13434 1 Nov. 2013 1 1 1� Ww IV *--". -AS 2V VIV 8, 14 1 1 11 FILL BORING 1 Description Sod over: Gray -brown silty SAND with pockets of topsoil, fine to coarse -grained, moist, medium -dense (FILL) 5 46 2 Gray -brown silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, dense R 10— M 60 3 -becomes very dense and rust -brown mottled 15- 71 4 Gray SAND, fine to coarse -grained, moist, very dense Test boring was terminated on November 21, 2013 at 16.5 feet. No groundwater was encountered during drilling. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST BORING LOG 344 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Job Date: Logged by: Plate: 13434 Nov. 2013 TRC 3j 'C� BORING 2 Description Sod over: 8 1 1 11 FILL I Dark brown silty SAND with organics, fine to medium -grained, wet, loose (FILL) I Rust -brown mottled gray -brown, silty SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, 2 7 1 2 -dense moist to wet, medium sm 10- 66 3 -becomes very dense and rust -brown mottled * Test boring was terminated on October 30, 2009 at 11,5 feet. * No groundwater was encountered during drilling. 15 20 GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. TEST BORING LOG 344 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Job Date:. Logged by: I Plate: 13434 Nov 2013 1 TRC 4] GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. HAR o � BUILDING DEPARTMENT 13256 NoAheast 20th Street, Suite 16 Crty OF EDMONDS B611evue, Washington 98005 (425)747-5018 FAX(425)747-8561 March 6, 2014 JIN 13434 Thomas Goebel PO Box 451 Kirkland, Washington 98083 Subject: Plan Review Proposed Additions to Single Family Residence 344 Sunset Avenue North Edmonds, Washington Reference: "Geotechnical Engineering Study," subject site, Geotech Consultants, Inc. December 2, 2013. Plans Reviewed: Chris Pardo Design, Sheets AO.0 through A6.2, March 7, 2014. Bykonen Carter Quinn, Sheets S1.0 through S6.1, March 3, 2014. Dear Mr. Goebel - via email We have completed a general review of the geotechnical aspects of the plans provided. The undersigned associate met with the contractor and architect at the site last week following the demo of the house framing. The onsite trackhoe was used to excavate a series of test holes in the crawlspace, and we found bearing soils within approximately 6 inches of the existing crawlspace grades over nearly all of the footprint. Based on this information, the team decided the preferred course of action was to remove and replace the existing foundation. This approach is acceptable from a geotechnical standpoint and is congruent with our original study. We do recommended that the surface of the excavation be covered with a 4- to 6-inch layer of clean crushed rock for subgrade protection and drainage, and Geotech should be called to the site to confirm the bearing soils prior to rock placement. Based on the drawings provided, in our judgment, the recommendations from our original geotechnical report have been incorporated into the reviewed development plans. In accordance with ECDC 23.80.060 — it is our opinion that (provided our recommendations are followed) the proposed development: I. Will not increase the threat of the geological hazard to adjacent properties beyond predevelopment conditions; 2. Will not adversely impact other critical areas; 3. Is designed so that the hazard to the project is eliminated or mitigated to a level equal to or less than predevelopment conditions; and 4. Is certified as safe as designed and under anticipated conditions by a qualified engineer or geologist, licensed in the state of Washington. Furthermore, in accordance with ECDC 23.80.050.H - there are no mapped faults within 200 feet of the subject site (the closest being the South Whidbey Fault, which is a number of miles north of the site). Our soil report takes into account code design earthquakes and addresses potential seismic liquefaction. We acknowledge appointment as Special Inspector for this project, and by copy of this letter, request that we be kept informed of the progress of construction so we are able to make the necessary observations, in a timely manner. GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Tom Goebel March 6, 2014 If you have any questions, or if we may be of further service, please do not hesitate to contact us. Respectfully submitted, GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. Associate JN 13434 Page 2 JHS/jhs GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC. City of Edmonds STREET FkE Critical Area Notice of Decision Applicant- Property Owner: lot- MIA'Vpc�"'� P 5 Tow, A.k.1,irl &04W Critical Area File #: Pernrit Number: c-P-AX013-01%0 SL-pX0k3'06-;0 Site Location: Parcel Number: S"nsel- A,,e-. I 12TOS-AW0100-50c) —lYq Project Description: Ale-Lo Sor�k\e4%,%J\j C-2-064-em&4r or exle-Vina, a PI MARENE F-1 Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above. I . There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. _ The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.220, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. F-1 Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. 13 Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: - Geak" m - 4, d a" 12NI3 . �*e 1Z 6"69), C&"U4W4% =-C-. -614 1 . The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordanc with ECDC 23.40.120, Mitigation sequencing; d%W 31&llq. 2. vo"O' The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; 3. v/ The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. I 5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. F1 Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas anclJor does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s). Ce', Mxr-6�:m= — Reviewer �J �igna �e�� Dat"ey Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 1211612010 he -Notbiagm wall > ii;� " .—ly u4 ;,jl,�4bwddu1& -z' i. 'utid. �h, a iu�`d'tl" 'epxl"" hetba th. he"j,' Suct, WWI.& LOT COVERAGE: PROPOSED HOUSE EXISTING GARAGE EXISTING SHED 31'-4" 30.00' TO P.L. S 58*34'20" E C Z: m 0 45" < I m z U� > 00 "b S a<,�l 00 Fee coc ND> ,pp,T,AVA 'to? Of , > 30' P., 7 Vier / im G P-THR UGII �O .4DECK 01 U) Irn �7 PROPERTY OWNER: TOM & ROBIN GOEBEL P.O. BOX 451 KIRKLAND WA 98083 PROPERTY ADDRESS: 344 SUNSET AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 CHRIS PARDO DESIGN PARCEL#: 27032300100500 LOT AREA: 110t�-.i% SF 1520 1 1 th A— Suite G Searle' WA 98122 Typ. A— 4q-. W) p 206.351.6535 l. N—ftdted elementalamihibeaum— A— T"� Wip� b, r,,dgWl 5— blmg�,lt SY—W D ZOcotip New tmPmAaZ 6vrFpa tjtw ool�u� (�,4 IL4 "aw --f 39'-10/4' TO P.L. PROPERTY LINE 122.5' 4 -To G -VIA P 5'SIDE SETBACK L6 --App�7 Goebel B" .78' (E) DRIVEWAY . ........ �9.7 8 Residence RIVE V. (E) 0 FIV-11 1 15 x SirADbW NWA-4L- 4'W 0/ x OOD (0) -NEW ROOF Z�� FENCE OVERHANG TO I 4'WOOD �44 Sunset Ave FENCE REMAIN -0 Tn Edmonds I cw,,nrjL,.j I / i --SS C, 100.58' -PROPOS�C -PROPOSE 6- CLE_ 4" CLEAN T �r OUT 0111: 1�nu, LA6�F(M_31'4* - e- 61 of �j TO F.L. WAS FE)GTING DRA GIP'S"STE-1—tz SIDE SEWER NOTE: IF RE -USING EXISTING SIDE SEWER (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO HOUSE): PROPERTY OWNER MUST HAVE CONDITION VERIFIED AND PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IF RE -USING EXISTING SEWER LATERAL (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO CITY MAIN): CONDITION MUST BE VERIFIED BY PUBIC WORKS DEPARTMENT ' CONTACT EDMOND'S SEWER DIVISION AT 425-771-0236. HEIGHT CALCS. %is,Lq SF A +99.78' 10-47-so SF B +99.78' 126.64 SF C +99.48' D +100.58' SF 27% AVERAGE ORIGINAL GRADE +99.90' ACTUAL HEIGHT + 124.90' MAX HEIGHT +124.90' NEIGHBORING HOUSE PROPERTY LINE 75.0' TIGHTLINE' FROM DOWNSPRO NEIGHBORING HOUSE CURB & SIDEWALK NOTE: FOOTING DRAIN 85-111/4' AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING CURBING AND SIDEWALK WILL BE DETERMINEDON SITE BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. CURB OR SIDEWALK IN POOR CONDITION OR DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HALL REQUIRE REPLACEMENT. UTILITIES NOTE: ALL EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REUSED IF REMAIN-� 0 m 0\. M, z IN M 4'WOOD FENCE P47, TO REMAIN No. Date lSsue W(E) SHED 12,09.13 P—it "1' 0307 14 Corrections 99.48' L2 ENGINE R1 GDIVISION p S NO 1) 89-211," A R. Dam: Top.�. ACCEPTA&E TIGHTLINE ay pLpANING MATER1011. q WIR 35 SCH 4D ComerbLcFlag_A& N -12 Setback-- Actual F818 HMICOR pea,tsc) t 011- w — EXIST. WATER LINE 3/4" GALVAN IZED STEEL ±3 1'- SITE PLAN G — EXIST. GAS LINE 5/8" SITE PLAN �T SCALE; 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 22"x34"SHEET __1 FLEXIBLE STEEL ±31'-6- Job #: 058 ALL 00-U-0 SIJFYAOF� TO BE COVEW) WWI I DAY�3 SS — EXIST. SIDE SEWER 4" CONCRETE ±31'-6" wM EXISTING 0 WATER METER RIESUB 1yyf6,z1fe qU=.GD.EpART Ntla SUB 0 - 21114 n Al.o Sheet Nr-\,j. PcV— V . City of Edmonds Critical Area Notice of Decision CITY COPY Applicant: Property Owner: 10t- MX.1%atICA4� '01a�%e.s P 5 DWAA sw� io, &C5 4W Critical Area File #: Pernii't Number: C-RAX0 110 % 10 Site Location: Parcel Number: BYY Synsel A-e— A f 03 AW0100S,00 Project Description: AkLO %.^id exmm"M 0, F� Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described duovu. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer. 2. The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23.40.220, 23.50.2�0, and/or 23.80.040. 3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230. Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare' an erosion and sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30. Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or� a critical area buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160: -Creakc&�, evo,4- d" 12A/13 10 &C069), r-luAtw4s =V_ %r4 I The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordanct with EC15C 23.40.120, IvAe.- Mitigation sequencing; 3QJq. 2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare on or off the development proposal site; I 3. V1 'The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest; 4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC 23.40.110, Mitigation requirements. 5. V11, The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and 6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards. Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC �3.40.160 and the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of noncompliance. AFavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160, Review Criteria, and complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations�i Any subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal. Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced above. See referenced pen -nit number for specific condition(s). Cie ,, Mitr Reviewer ., �ignaOure �� Dat"e�y Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any, for the permit or approval involved. Revised 1211 d(201 0 MA be tbiar;a4-P9' the ��.,P-%wiolg wal, "d an, .,vntly Nectu. 'jwtide of 6t. cen&tjon e�j�of,&etbuxh the b.,d., 'mmetave cf. se� (0 �D 30.00' S 58*34'20" E c'y ,,\3 , > C0( C: Cn m ov -1 < m I J z S C9 2, ppNt- -Vbv ov S'. 30' "I -,,, IV \Z \,/ LOT COVERAGE: HEIGHT CALCS. PROPOSED HOUSE Itts.-A SF A +99.78 EXISTING GARAGE 10'�2.so SF B +99.78' EXISTING SHED 126.64 SF C +99.48' D +100.58' TOTAL LOT COVERAGE zq 14 --n SF 27% AVERAGE ORIGINAL GRADE +99.90' ACTUAL HEIGHT +124.90' MAX HEIGHT +124.90' 31'.4' TO P.L. A LIFF, 1, NEIGHBORING HOUSE =N PROPERTY LINE 75.0' cn -Ii 71.15ZIO�1�]LtVAff( m 0' Im 10 rfl�not"j I 'j, 11 L 7 Ll--.�-�--=---L-.�-1—�-,---�--,:tttvm-i--i.�=-�------=-�-,---1 C..................... 100.58' TIGHTLINEj ,PROPOSED - /PFR 10 P 0 SE D FROM Q1. 6"CLE_W �4JJC L E A N DOWNSPg&S (ZUT T C�A_31 60"_,de- etol TO P.L. V PIq wt' , FGOTING DRAIN AND NEIGHBORING fIGHTI-INE CONNEf—F 0- HOUSE GITYSYSTENI FOR SIDE SEWER NOTE: IF RE -USING EXISTING SIDE SEWER (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO HOUSE): PROPERTY OWNER MUST HAVE CONDITION VERIFIED AND PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT IF RE -USING EXISTING SEWER LATERAL (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO CITY MAIN): CONDITION MUST BE VERIFIED BY PUBIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. CONTACT EDMOND'S SEWER DIVISION AT 425-771-0236. CURB & SIDEWALK NOTE: FOOTING DRAIN a5,-111/4- PROPERTY OWNER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PARCEL#: LOT AREA: Tn. Am 0q.. !Lq 3142 U.pld TOM & ROBIN GOEBEL P.O. BOX 451 KIRKLAND WA 98083 344 SUNSET AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 27032300100500 110i�'v SF CHRIS PARDO DESIGN I S20 11 th Ave. Stdta G Seavle, WA 98122 p 206.351.6535 elernentalarchftecture.com Rtgulatod Am " Ye n.*,,,. 1 1 p�peed w te MWS�d by Le� bv-t Deld-pe—t TftWdq 0 be MWV" W..A Cd-el SW?A T.-h.4— bjew oml�aq� 12�4 P q 5 39'-103/4- 41 "1 +064 TO P.L. PROPERTY LINE 122.5' C-x 15-TIF-1 Z;UDF_� -To C, t r1A pKC4tAA_iF L6 19 Goebel 9 Residence L978 (E) DRIVE G1.1, C.6 $t"DWX WCA4L, 4'WOOD — ----- 7- NEW ROOF FENCE OVERHANG TO 4' WOOD 4 Sunset Ave N REMAIN FENCE -u ) Edmonds AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING CURBING AND SIDEWALK WILL BE DETERMINEDON SITE BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. CURB OR SIDEWALK IN POOR CONDITION OR DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HALL REQUIRE REPLACEMENT. UTILITIES NOTE: ALL EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REUSED IF POSSIBLE, Aitztyni vm�,. -r�zr v,'t— , REMAIN-� 0 T-1 .�5 Z m C3 TP EL 4'WOOD ED P..P p S6�[ I FENCE 3' TO REMAIN (E) SHED 12009mi? Pemt -7— '1'\ 030714 99.48' EESIYJANL12L-61� 73 L2 ENGINE RI G DIVISION A R. SNO 0 W-21-;' Ila: TO PA. ACCEPTAME TIGHTLINE pLpANING MATERIAL q dIDR 35 Zone PS—G Cornerbi, Flag SCH 40 N .12 Setback E!�Qd Actual Me NMWR Frontfmj) __!0L_ ;,a,. Rear(Sff) w WATER LINE 3/4 Odw EXIST. GALVANIZED STEEL ±31 6 SITE PLAN F�— SITE PLAN G EXIST. GAS LINE 5/8 FLEXIBLE STEEL ±31'-6" Job #: 058 SCALE: 1/8" = l'-O* @ 22*x34" SHEET 1 —SS— EXIST. SIDE SEWER 4" ALL EXPOPM SWFACF3 TO BE OOVERED INMIrl z CA,,,3 CONCRETE ±31'-6" vvlJ EXISTING 0 WATER METER IS = 81HUDING DSP�EWT onN of �De SUB �'. ?914 Al o Sheet NEW. 14C��?/u6z Ci:?j pry— KF?6LAOT „-Nothing in tAlis p(,r1n,'% "proval process shall bo int,erpreted as allo"119 -()r permitting the p I . illegal, ,Aaintenance of 8AY GO",litly existing i nonconforming or u�%P,�iiiiittedbuilding, s,,:ructure s outs, de the scope of the or site collditi0l"�'!`(` 1-1 less of whether such rf1dt application, i,PVkrd n is shovm on the g, 'in ch building. strUcture O'�' site Ian or draw�,(19- Su, . 0 conitluion ma;y be the si,-,,P3 enfo%=ent action ') 30.00 S 58034 ) 20 1) E 0 N) 00 CV W C: z Cn M M z Ul d 6 F, 00 S TM CO-6 00 DATUM PT. +100 '&vW0'J)1 OP OF SS MANHOLE COVER 30' LOT COVERAGE; PROPOSED HOUSE 1815.29 SF EXISTING GARAGE 1032.80 SF EXISTING SHED 126.64� SF TOTAL LOT COVERAGE 2974.73 SF 27% NOTE: COVERAGE INCLUDES PORTION OF EAVES THAT 11 EXCEED30. HEIGHT CALCS. A B C D AVERAGE ORIGINAL GRADE ACTUAL HEIGHT MAX HEIGHT NEIGHBORING HOUSE i svl�,A +99.78' dAWT-:1 , r17 �, eLPP1 I Pei Blow, +99.78 Mv ,�A +99.48 oru icoto LV +100.58' regardle�z r such -��rfn' it iltion is wn on 01- Q (pe conA str +99.90' * 124.90' * 124.90' PROPERTY OWNER: PROPERTY ADDRESS: PARCEL#: LOT AREA: i .... . .. ..... A, 91 AYCXI(� n . . . . . . .. . N. ..................................... ... .... .... . 0i ..... ..... . .... .............. . .................. ....... .. 7 . ........ ... .. .... ............. . X . ..... ... . ... 4.. + E p: �-F- - - gg .'MMAgAUA. �e� .... ......... .... TOM & ROBIN GOEBEL P.O. BOX 451 KIRKLAND WA 98083 344 SUNSET AVE N EDMONDS WA 98020 27032300100500 11015.21 SF Vrdwt. 109 T Wes 'Amem"waki:�beArlitow hyu� bftaau�� ''T "Ital- X 0 A- 6 rc>6n rov P?W1\ llvl_� -111, Lil, V,& 1b 6,bNk-,�-r -k-,, e_1 6f P, 3114” 46'-OY2" 39'-10�/4" 3 �_ Rw ove ie4 ("1 k 11 Qj 8 0'- 2 .'*4 > ICA( 1-t=NU1z TO REMAIN A - N PROPOSED ROPOSED 6 11 C L E k" 4"CLEAN 0 U T ��`\ OUT to/ 1�1 Ca (row 311- 11 tOrJ�'J IMWq 0 & TO P. L. cove., tN L/e htXb,51+:5 FGGT44G-DfZA*4-AN& e+Ty_8yS_TE_M_ff0R_ 01 ,ECT DISCHAR SIDE SEWER NOTE: 1P lil I i—A lie-%k r111 �1: Wr4t 4'WOOD NEW ROOF W >V OV�RHANG . . .. . .. . . . . SS -.:-] C 0 ----------- 99.48" PPr)PF=PTV INI 0 C 100.58-- IF RE -USING EXISTING SIDE SEWER (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO HOUSE): PROPERTY OWNER MUST HAVE CONDITION VERIFIED AND PROVIDE A REPORT TO THE PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. IF RE -USING EXISTING SEWER LATERAL (FROM PROPERTY LINE TO CITY MAIN): CONDITION MUST BE VERIFIED BY PUBIC WORKS DEPARTMENT. CONTACT EDMOND'S SEWER DIVISION AT 425-771-0236. TIGHTLIN L FOOTING FROM QJ DRAIN DOWNSPq&S 1 86-1 1y4" NEIGHBORING HOUSE CURB & SIDEWALK NOTE: AN ASSESSMENT OF THE CONDITION OF THE EXISTING CURBING AND SIDEWALK WILL BE DETERMINEDON SITE BY THE ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. CURB OR SIDEWALK IN POOR CONDITION OR DAMAGED BY CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES HALL REQUIRE REPLACEMENT. UTILITIES NOTE: ALL EXISTING UTILITIES TO BE REUSED IF P N,�7 4�k I , f L2 Zone -6 C1111 A1gF1ag&_.A .�.e.tbacks C)CEPTABLE TIC44TM Actual MATERIAL Front (NW) '12"' SDR 35 --SCH 40 2_�:�N -12 Rear (,sg) ___14jL�Fglo HANC(A Other N5wAlWimA- SITE PLAN &� I ffiqfl,�-^4V SCALE: 1/8" = 1'-0" @ 22"x34" SHEET N wul ALL EXP0,'S*D 8URFiA05a'T,,0 13-t- COVEM-0 WITRW 2 DAY3 801-2yg" GAR. TO P.L. ENGINE ING DIVISION A, D A$ NOTrr_D tA UkM Date2;12tt 771 M W EXIST. WATER LINE 3/41111 GALVANIZED STEEL ±31 G EXIST. GAS LINE 5/811 FLEXIBLE STEEL ±311-611 SS EXIST. SIDE SEWER 419 CONCRETE ±311-611 WM EXISTING 0 WATER METER 1520 11 th Ave. Suite G p 206.351.6535 el ernenta larch itectu re. com eChris Pardo Design, LLC 2013 These drawings were prepared for Goebel Residence project In Edmonds, WA. They are not intended for use on any other project. Stated drawing scale Is based on 34x22 sheet. 50 au Wtv Goebel mesidence 44 Sunset Ave Edmonds 4430 ISTERED 'HITECT IfTER DA\�1ZDUAVP]S No. Date Issue 12.09.13 Permit 03.07.14 Corrections 04.23.14 Corrections SITE PLAN Job #: 058 I I B � IAFR� 0 014 BUILDING DEPARc-MENT CITY OF EDMONDS