530 7TH AVE S.PDF11111111111111
14750
530 7TH AVE S
GEOTECH STREET n�� 256 Northeast 20th Street, Suite 16
Bellevue, Wohington 98W5
CONSULTANTS, INC. RECEIVED (425)747-5618 FAX(425)747-8561
AUG 2 7 2015 August 20, 2015
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES JN 15193
Classico Homes Inc. COUNTER
PO Box 5012
Lynnwood, Washington 98046
Attention: Joe Schmaus via ema#: classicohomes@gmail com
Subject: Supplemental Letter
Proposed Two Single -Family Residences
532 — Th Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Schmaus:
We prepared a geotechnical engineering study for this project dated May 20, 2015. We have been provided
with a plan review comment letter prepared by the City of Edmonds dated July 27, 2015. That letter states
that the subject site contains and is adjacent to a slope that is steep enough to be considered both a Landslide
Hazard Area and Erosion Hazard Area, and that a geotechnical engineer must address applicable sections of
the Edmonds Code.
Our previous report did not address the code sections because we understood that previous geotechnical
studies by others had satisfied the city's requirements. We have prepared this letter to supplement our
previous study and address the code sections.
The current house layout plan for the western house (dated 8/18/15) indicates a setback of about 52 feet from
the northern property line and 5 feet from the western property line. The layout for the eastern house (dated
8/19/15) indicates a main house setback of 20.5 feet from the northern property line. These layouts were used
in our analysis.
SLOPE STABILITY ANALYSIS
Based on the current building layouts provided, it is our understanding that foundations for the western
proposed residences will be set back about 5+ feet from the top of the taller steep slopes in the northern and
western portions of the site. Decks will extend north of the residences, but will not extend over the top of the
steep northern slope. The eastern structure will be at the crest of the shorter eastern section of the northern
slope. We have conducted a slope stability analysis of the steep slopes and their relationship to the
residences using the computer program SLOPEAN. We used a topographic survey to develop a cross-
section of the ground surface.
Soil parameters were needed for the analysis, with most significant being the defining strength parameters of
the site soils, including angle of internal friction. For the upper loose sands found in the borings, we selected
an internal friction value of 32 degrees. For the underlying medium -dense sand, we chose a representative
angle of internal friction of 36 degrees. Using the existing slope cOnfigurabon and appropriate soil
parameters, the stability of the slopes was analyzed for both static and dynamic loading conditions. For the
dynamic analysis, a peak ground coefficient of acceleration of 0.23g was used. Factors of safety against
failures of the northern slope were found to be 1.08 and 0.72 for static and seismic conditions, respectively.
Factors of safety against failures of the western slope were found to be 1.21 and 0.74 for static and seismic
conditions, respectively. Loads from the piles which will support the portions of the residences and decks
adjacent to the northern and western slopes will extend at least 15 feet below the ground surface and will not
impact stability of the slopes. Our analyses found that the pile loads did not decrease stability of the steep
northern and western slopes.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes
August 20, 2015
JN15193
Page 2
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
The proposed building setbacks described above are acceptable provided that the recommendations
presented in our geotechnical study are followed. As stated in our geotechnical report, pipe piles will be used
to support the portions of the residences close to the steep northern and western slopes to reduce the
potential for potential slope failures to impact the residences. The pipe piles will be driven at least 15 feet into
the underlying soils, and will be connected with structural grade beams. The dense soils that will support the
piles are not subject to slope instability due to their density and improved geometry. No fill soils will be placed
between the proposed residences and the steep northern and western slopes, and no stormwater runoff will
be directed toward the slopes.
In the site's current condition, we expect that some rainfall from the upper, level portion of the site flows over
the ground surface and onto the steep slopes. Following the proposed development, roof runoff will be
captured by gutters and will be directed away from the steep slopes, thus reducing their exposure to surface
water and reducing the potential for slope instability.
The slopes within the northern and western portions of the site are considered Landslide Hazard Areas and
Erosion Hazard Areas per Edmonds Code because of their inclination, height, and composition. The code
requires a buffer from such areas, equal to the height of the slope or 50 feet, whichever is greater. However,
Section 23.80.070.1(b) states that the buffer may be reduced to a minimum of 10 feet when a qualified
professional demonstrates that the reduction will adequately protect the proposed development, adjacent
developments and users, and the subject critical area. Section 23.80.070.2 states that an erosion or landslide
hazard area and/or buffer may only occur for activities for which a hazards analysis is submitted that shows
the proposed development will not increase surface water discharge or sedimentation to adjacent properties
beyond predevelopment conditions, the development will not decrease slope stability on adjacent properties,
and the alterations will not adversely impact other critical areas. In our opinion, these conditions are satisfied
by the proposed development plan.
Edmonds Code Section 23.80.070.3 states that development within an erosion or landslide hazard area and/or
buffer cannot decrease the factor of safety for landslides below 1.5 for static conditions and 1.2 for dynamic
conditions. If stability is below these limits, the proposed development shall provide practicable approaches to
reduce risk to human safety and improve the factor of safety for landsliding. In no case shall the existing
factor of safety be reduced for the subject property or adjacent properties.
Based on our slope stability analyses and our experience with similar projects in the Puget Sound region, it is
our opinion that the proposed residences can be constructed close to the top of the steep northern and
western slopes without detrimentally impacting those slopes. Although the existing factors of safety against
static and dynamic landslides are below 1.5 and 1.2, respectively, the proposed development will not decrease
those factors of safety. In fact, because a reduced amount of surface water will reach the steep slopes
following development, the potential for slope failures will be decreased. In our opinion the proposed
development satisfies the requirements of Section 23.40 and 23.80 of Edmonds Code, provided the
recommendations in our report are followed.
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.
TRCIJHS:at
Respectfully submitted,
e -To
,.--,01 �WsSo�),N GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Associate
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
.
STREET FIE
0 EOTECH
13256 Northeast 20th Street. Suite 16
CONSULTANTS, INC.
(4 Bellevue, Washington 98005
671� 25)747-5618 FAX(425)747-8561
May 20, 2015
JN 15193
Classico Homes Inc.
PO Box 5012
JUN 2015
Lynnwood, Washington 98046
DEVELOPMENT
Attention: Joe Schmaus
SERVICES
COUNTER via emait classicohomes@gmail.com
Subject: Transmittal Letter — Geotechnical
Engineering Study
Proposed Two Single -Family Residences
532 — 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
Dear Mr. Schmaus:
We are pleased to present this geotechnicall engineering report for the two residences to be
constructed in Edmonds, Washington. The scope of our services consisted of exploring site
surface and subsurface conditions, and then developing this report to provide recommendations for
general earthwork and design criteria for foundations and retaining walls. This work was
authorized by your acceptance of our proposal dated April 24, 2015.
The attached report contains a discussion of the study and our recommendations. Please contact
us if there are any questions regarding this report, or for further assistance during the design and
construction phases of this project.
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
7 5 � `0_1 _�:� �
James H. Strange, P.E.
Associate
cc: Hagge Design Associates Inc. — Tom Hagge
via email.* haggedesign@msn.com
TRC/JHS: at
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING STUDY
Proposed Two Single -Family Residences
532 - r Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
This report presents the findings and recommendations of our geotechnical engineering study for
the site of the two proposed residences to be located in Edmonds.
We were provided with a site plan, floor plans, and elevation views prepared by Hagge Design
Associates Inc., dated April 29, 2015. Based on these plans, we understand that the development
will consist of two single-family residences with two stories. The eastern residence will have a
partial basement that daylights toward the north. One residence will be located in the eastern
portion of the site and another will be located in the southwestern portion. The north side of the
residences will be close to the top of a steep, north -facing slope, and the west side of the
southwest residence will be close to the top of a steep, west -facing slope. Both residences will
have garages that will be accessed from a driveway along the south edge of the site, and the
eastern residence will have an additional garage at its north end. The southwestern residence will
have a deck north of the residence that will extend close to the steep northern slope.
The southwest residence will be constructed close to the existing ground surface, as will the south
half of the eastern residence. The garage and basement below the northern half of the east
residence will have floor elevations 13 and 11 feet, respectively, below the floor of the main level.
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 in Edmonds. The site is
bordered to the east by 7' Avenue South, and is otherwise surrounded with residences. We
understand that a house formerly occupied the site but has been removed. The site appears to
have been cleared, and is vegetated with sparse field grass.
The ground surface in the southern half of the site has a high point near the center of the southern
property line, and slopes gently down from the high point toward the west to east. Near the east
edge of the site the slope steepens and declines to the adjacent roadway. A slope about 5 feet
high near the southern property line slopes steeply down from the neighboring property to the site.
A concrete block wall faces about the west half of that Steep slope, which was likely caused by an
excavation to level the subject site.
A short distance west of the southern half of the site the ground surface slopes down toward the
west, at an inclination close to 2:1 (H:V). This slope has a height of about 15 to 20 feet.
The ground surface in the northern half of the site slopes at an inclination of 1.51 (H:V) down
toward the north. This slope is about 30 feet tall. A level pad on the east side of this slope is
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 2
accessible from the adjacent 71 Avenue South, and appears to have been graded by cutting into
the slope and filling to the north.
We did not observe indications of instability of the steep slopes within the site, and we unserstand
that these slopes were granted a steep exemption based on previous study at the site (by others).
SUBSURFACE
The subsurface conditions were explored by excavating six test pits at the approximate locations
shown on the Site Exploration Plan, Plate 2. Our exploration program was based on thiB proposed
construction, anticipated subsurface conditions and those encountered during exploration, and the
scope of work outlined in our proposal.
The test pits were excavated on May 1, 2015 with a rubber -tracked excavator. A geotechnical
engineer from our staff observed the excavation process, logged the test pits, and obtained
representative samples of the soil encountered. "Grab" samples of selected subsurface soil were
collected from the excavator bucket. The Test Pit Logs are attached to this report as Plates 3
through 5.
Soil Conditions
Test Pits 1, 4, 5, and 6 were located on or close to the steep northern slope. These
exploration encountered similar conditions that consisted of sand with gravel that was loose
or loose to medium -dense to depths of at least 6 feet.
In Test Pits 1 and 5 the sand with gravel was medium -dense below 6 and 7.5 feet,
respectively. The loose to medium -dense soil extended to the base of Test Pits 4 and 6 at
depths of 6 and 6.5 feet.
Test Pits 2 and 3 were located in the western portion of the site, more than 15 feet from . the
tops of.steep slopes. These explorations revealed loose to medium -dense sand with gravel
that became medium -dense 2.5 feet below the ground surface, and continued to the
maximum explored depths of 4.5 and 6 feet.
Groundivater Conditions
No groundwater seepage was observed in the test pits. It should be noted that. groundwater
levels vary seasonally with rainfall and other factors.
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. The relative densities and moisture descriptions indicated
on the test pit logs are interpretive descriptions based on the conditions observed during
excavation.
The compaction of test pit backfill was not in the scope of our services. Loose soil will therefore be
found in the area of the test pits. If this presents a problem, the backfill will need to be removed
and replaced with structural fill during construction.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classico Homes Inc.
May 20, 2015
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
GENERAL
JN 15193
Page 3
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 pits conducted for this study encountered sand with gravel that was loose or loose to
medium -dense on or close to steep slopes, and was medium -dense at shallow depths in our
explorations that were more than 15 feet from the slopes.
We recommend that the northern sides of the residences and the west side of the southwest
residence be supported by pipe piles driven to refusal. Decks that extend from the residences
toward the adjacent steep slopes should also be supported with pipe piles and be tied back to the
main foundations with continuous footings. This foundation system will provide vertical support of
the structures by transferring vertical loads past the near -surface loose soil and into the underlying
medium -dense soil. It will also avoid placing any loads from the foundations onto the slope. The
remainder of the residence structural loads can be supported with conventional footing foundations,
provided they bear on native, medium -dense native soil.
Based on the soils revealed at the site, the soils at the core of the steep slopes are granular and
medium -dense. Therefore, it is our opinion the site slopes are stable with respect to deep-seated
slope failures. However, as with any steep slope in the Puget Sound area, the site slopes do have
a potential for shallow slope failures. We expect that any failures would be shallow skin slides up
to a few feet in depth. Such shallow soil movement will not impact the residences provided pipe
piles are used to support the portions of the residences close to the steep slopes, as recommended
above. To lower the potential for shallow soil movement, no fill soils should be placed between the
proposed residences and the steep slopes, and stormwater runoff should not be directed onto
steep slopes.
Although the sandy soils that underlie the site have a fairly high permeability, in our opinion
stormwater infiltration is not feasible for the project due to the steep slopes close to the proposed
development.
The erosion control measures needed during the site development will depend heavily on the
weather conditions that are encountered. We anticipate that a silt fence will be needed around the
downslope sides of any cleared areas. Existing pavements, ground cover, and landscaping should
be left in place wherever possible to minimize the amount of exposed soil. Rocked staging areas
and construction access roads should be provided to reduce the amount of soil or mud carried off
the property by trucks and equipment. Wherever possible, the access roads should follow the
alignment of planned pavements. 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
clearing or rough grading, it may be necessary to mulch or hydroseed bare areas that will not be
immediately covered with landscaping or an impervious surface. On most construction projects, it
is necessary to periodically maintain or modify temporary erosion control measures to address
specific site and weather conditions.
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
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 4
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 moist
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.
We recommend including this report, in its entirety, in the project contract documents. This report
should also be provided to any future property owners so they will be aware of our findings and
recommendations.
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 D (Stiff Site Class). As noted in the USGS
website, the mapped spectral acceleration value for a 0.2 second (%) and 1.0 second period (SI)
equals 1.27g and 0.50g, respectively.
The IBC states that a site -specific seismic study need not be performed provided that the peak
ground acceleration be equal to SDS/2.5, where SDS is determined in ASCE 7. It is noted that SDS is
equal to 2/3Sms. Sms equals Fa times Ss, where Fa is determined in Table 11.4-1. For our site, F. =
1.0. The calculated peak ground acceleration that we utilized for the seismic -related parameters
(earth pressures and seismic surcharges) of this report equals 0.34g.
The site soils are not susceptible to seismic liquefaction because of their medium -dense nature and
the absence of near -surface groundwater.
CONVENTIONAL FOUNDATIONS
The proposed structure can be Supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing
on undisturbed, medium -dense, native soil. We recommend that continuous and individual spread
footings have minimum widths of 12 and 16 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 2,000 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
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 5
used when considedng 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
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 be�ween 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:
ICoefficient of Friction 0.45
Passive Earth Pressure 300 pcf
!T1!!i1
Where: PCf IS Pounds per Cubic Foot and 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.
PIPE PILES
Three- or 4-inch-diameter pipe piles driven with a 650- or 800- or 1,100-pound hydraulic
jackhammer to the following final penetration rates may be assigned the following compressive
capacities.
3 inches, sec/inch _L ___ ------
1 12: - —Z 10 sec/inch 6 sec/inch 6 tons
4 inches 1 20 sec/inch 1-- 15 sec/inch 10 sec/inch 10 tons
Note: The refusal criteria indicated in the above table are valid only for pipe piles that are installed
using a hydraulic impact hammer carried on leads that allow the hammer to sit on the top of the pile
during driving. If the piles are installed by alternative methods, such as a vibratory hammer or a
hammer that is hard -mounted to the installation machine, numerous load tests to 200 percent of the
design capacity would be necessary to substantiate the allowable pile load. The appropriate number of
load tests would need to be determined at the time the contractor and installation method are chosen.
As a minimum, Schedule 40 pipe should be used. The site soils should not be highly corrosive.
Considering this, it is our opinion that standard "black" pipe can be used, and corrosion protection,
such as galvanizing, is not necessary for the pipe piles.
Smaller, 2-inch-cliameter pipe piles with less capacity can be used to support unroofed decks close
to steep slopes. A 2-inch-diameter pipe pile driven with a minimum 90-pound jackhammer or. a
140-pound Rhino hammer to a final penetration rate of 1-inch or less for one minute of continuous
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classico Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 6
driving may be assigned an allowable compressive load of 2 tons. Extra -strong steel pipe should
be used for these 2-inch piles.
We recommend a minimu * rn pile length of 15 feet to achieve embedment into medium -dense,
native soils. This is simply a minimum length needed to develop sufficient capacity. Our
experience with installation of small -diameter pipe piles indicates that it is likely that they will be
longer than this minimum length to reach refusal.
Pile caps and grade beams should be used to transmit loads to the piles. Isolated pile caps should
include a minimum of two piles to reduce the potential for eccentric loads being applied to the piles
and any outboard deck supports on the slope side of the residences should be attached to the main
foundation with nominally reinforced footings to restrain the pile tops laterally. Subsequent sections
of pipe can be connected with slip or threaded couplers, or they can be welded together. If slip
couplers are used, they should fit snugly into the pipe sections. This may require that shims be
used or that beads of welding flux be applied to the outside of the coupler.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundation. For this condition, the foundation must be either
poured directly against relatively level, undisturbed soil or be surrounded by level compacted fill.
We recommend using a passive earth pressure of 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf) for this
resistance. If the ground in front of a foundation is loose or sloping (on the downslope side of the
houses/decks), the passive earth pressure given above will not be appropriate. We recommend a
safety factor of at least 1.5 for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading, when using the above
ultimate passive value. Due to their small diameter, the lateral capacity of vertical pipe piles is
relatively small. However, if lateral resistance in addition to passive soil resistance is required, we
recommend driving battered piles in the same direction as the applied lateral load. The lateral
capacity of a battered pile is equal to one-half of the lateral component of the allowable
compressive load, with a maximum allowable lateral capacity of 1,000 pounds. The allowable
vertical capacity of battered piles does not need to be reduced if the piles are battered steeper than
1:5 (Horizontal:Vertical).
FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS
Retaining walls backfilled on only one side should be designed to resist the lateral earth pressures
imposed by the soil they retain. The following recommended parameters are for walls that restrain
level backfill:
ct
Active Earth Pressure
i P
35 pcf
PassiveE h Pressure
P r su
Si �a �rt���
E
30iT —pcf
coefficient of Friction
0.45
Soil Unit Weight
130 pcf
Where: PCf Is Pounds per Cubic Foot, and Active and Passive
Earth Pressures are computed using the equivalent fluid
pressures.
* For a restrained wall that cannot deflect at least 0.002 times Its
height, a uniform lateral Pressure equal to 16 psf times the height
of the wall should be added to the above active equivalent fluid
pressure.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classico Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 7
The design values given above do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the
walls and assume that no surcharges, such as those caused by slopes, vehicles, or adjacent
foundations will be exerted on the walls. If these conditions exist, those pressures should be added
to the above lateral soil pressures. Where sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and the slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate
design earth pressures. The surcharge due to traffic loads behind a wall can typically be
accounted for by adding a uniform pressure equal to 2 feet multiplied by the above active fluid
density. Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and foundation
walls within a distance equal to the height of a wall, unless the walls are designed for the additional
lateral pressures resulting from the equipment.
The values given above are to be used to design only permanent foundation and retaining walls
that are to be backfilled, such as conventional walls constructed of reinforced concrete or masonry.
It is not appropriate to use the above earth pressures and soil unit weight to back -calculate soil
strength parameters for design of other types of retaining walls, such as soldier pile, reinforced
earth, modular or soil nail walls. We can assist with design of these types of walls, if desired. The
passive pressure given is appropriate only for a shear key poured directly against undisturbed
native soil, or for the depth of level, well -compacted fill placed in front of a retaining or foundation
wall. The values for friction and passive resistance are ultimate values and do not include a safety
factor. Restrained wall soil parameters should be utilized for a distance of 1.5 times the wall height
from comers or bends in the walls. This is intended to reduce the amount of cracking that can
occur where a wall is restrained by a comer.
WaH Pressures Due to Seismic Forces
The surcharge wall loads that could be imposed by the design earthquake can be modeled
by adding a uniform lateral pressure to the above-recom mended active pressure. The
recommended surcharge pressure is 8H pounds per square foot (psf), where H is the
design retention height of the wall. Using this increased pressure, the safety factor against
sliding and overturning can be reduced to 1.2 for the seismic analysis.
Retainin-g WaH Backfill and Waterprooring
Backfill placed behind retaining or foundation walls should be coars e, free -draining
structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain no more than 5 percent silt
or clay particles and have no gravel greater than 4 inches in diameter. The percentage of
particles passing the No. 4 sieve should be between 25 and 70 percent. If the native sand
is used as backfill, a drainage composite similar to Miradrain 6000 should be placed against
the backfilled retaining walls. The drainage composites should be hydraulically connected
to the foundation drain system.
The purpose of these backfill requirements is to ensure that the design criteria for a
retaining wall are not exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the
wall. Also, subsurface drainage systems are not intended to handle large volumes of water
from surface runoff. The top 12 to 18 inches of the backfill should consist of a compacted,
relatively impermeable soil or topsoil, or the surface should be paved. The ground surface
must also slope away from backfilled walls to reduce the potential for surface water to
percolate into the backfill. Water percolating through pervious surfaces (pavers, gravel,
permeable pavement, etc.) must also be prevented from flowing toward walls or into the
backfill zone. The compacted subgrade below pervious surfaces and any associated
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classico Homes Inc.
May 20, 2015
JN 15193
Page 8
drainage layer should therefore be sloped away. Alternatively, a membrane and subsurface
collection system could be provided below a pervious surface.
It is critical that the wall backfill be placed in lifts and be properly compacted, in order for the
above-recom mended design earth pressures to be appropriate. The wall design criteria
assume that the backfill will be well -compacted in lifts no thicker than 12 inches. The
compaction of backfill near the walls should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment to prevent the walls from being overloaded by the higher soil forces that occur
during compaction. The section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains
additional recommendations regarding the placement and compaction of structural fill
behind retaining and foundation walls.
The above recommendations are not intended to waterproof below -grade walls, or to
prevent the formation of mold, mildew or fungi in interior spaces. Over time, the
performance of subsurface drainage systems can degrade, subsurface groundwater flow
patterns can change, and utilities can break or develop leaks. Therefore, waterproofing
should be provided where future seepage through the walls is not acceptable. This typically
includes limiting cold -joints and wall penetrations, and using bentonite panels or
membranes on the outside of the walls. There are a variety of different waterproofing
materials and systems, which should be installed by an experienced contractor familiar with
the anticipated construction and subsurface conditions. Applying a thin coat of asphalt
emulsion to the outside face of a wall is not considered waterproofing, and will only help to
reduce moisture generated from water vapor or capillary action from seeping through the
concrete. As with any project, adequate ventilation of basement and crawl space areas is
important to prevent a build up of water vapor that is commonly transmitted through
concrete walls from the surrounding soil, even when seepage is not present. This is
appropriate even when waterproofing is applied to the outside of foundation and retaining
walls. We recommend that you contact an experienced envelope consultant if detailed
recommendations or specifications related to waterproofing design, or minimizing the
potential for infestations of mold and mildew are desired.
The General, Stabs -On -Grade, and Drainage Considerations sections should be
reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater and excess
water vapor for the anticipated construction.
SLABS -ON -GRADE
The building floors can be constructed as Slabs -on -grade atop competent native soil, or on
structural fill. The subgrade soil must be in a firm, non -yielding condition at the time of slab
construction or underslab fill placement. Any soft areas encountered should be excavated and
replaced with select, imported structural fill.
Even where the exposed soils appear dry, water vapor will tend to naturally migrate upward through
the soil to the new constructed space above it. This can affect moisture -sensitive flooring, cause
imperfections or damage to the slab, or simply allow excessive water vapor into the space above
the slab. All interior slabs -on -grade should be underlain by a capillary break drainage layer
consisting of a minimum 4-inch thickness of clean gravel or crushed rock that has a fines content
(percent passing the No. 200 sieve) of less than 3 percent and a sand content (percent passing the
No. 4 sieve) of no more than 10 percent. Pea gravel or crushed rock are typically used for this
layer.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classico Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 9
As noted by the American Concrete Institute (ACI) in the Guides for Concrete Floor and Slab
Structures, proper moisture protection is desirable immediately below any on -grade slab that will be
covered by tile, wood, carpet, impermeable floor coverings, or any moisture -sensitive equipment or
products. ACI also notes that vapor retarders such as 6-mil plastic sheeting have been used in the
past, but are now recommending a minimum 10-mil thickness for better durability and long term
performance. A vapor retarder is defined as a material with a permeance of less than 0.3 perms,
as determined by ASTM E 96. It is possible that concrete admixtures may meet this specification,
although the manufacturers of the admixtures should be consulted. Where vapor retarders are
used under.slabs, their edges should overlap by at least 6 inches and be sealed with adhesive
tape. The sheeting should extend to'the foundation walls for maximum vapor protection. If no
potential for vapor passage through the slab is desired, a vapor barrier should be used. A vapor
barrier, as defined by ACI, is a product with a water transmission rate of 0.01 perms when tested in
accordance with ASTIM E 96. Reinforced membranes having sealed overlaps can meet this
requirement.
In the recent past, ACI (Section 4.1.5) recommended that a minimum of 4 inches of well -graded
compactable granular material, such as a 5/8-inch-minus crushed rock pavement base, be placed
over the vapor retarder or barrier for their protection, and as a "blotter" to aid in the curing of the
concrete slab. Sand was not recommended by ACI for this purpose.' However, the use of material
over the vapor retarder is controversial as noted in current ACI literature because of the potential
that the protection/blotter material can become wet between the time of its placement and the
installation of the slab. If the material is wet prior to slab placement, which is always possible in the
Puget Sound area, it could cause vapor transmission to occur up through the slab in the future,
essentially destroying the purpose of the vapor barrier/retarder. Therefore, if there is a potential
that the protection/blotter material will become wet before the slab is installed, ACI now
recommends that no protection/blotter material be used. However, ACI then recommends that,
because there is a potential for slab curl due to the loss of the blotter material, joint spacing in the
slab be reduced, a low shrinkage concrete mixture be used, and "other measures" (steel
reinforcing, etc.) be used. ASTM E-1643-98 "Standard Practice for Installation of Water Vapor
Retarders Used in Contact with Earth or Granular Fill Under Concrete Slabs" generally agrees with
the recent ACI literature.
We recommend that the contractor, the project materials engineer, and the owner discuss these
issues and review recent ACI literature and ASTM E-1643 for installation guidelines and guidance
on the use of the protection/blotter material.
The General, Permanent Foundation and Retaining Walls, and Drainage Considerations
sections should be reviewed for additional recommendations related to the control of groundwater
and excess water vapor for the anticipated construction.
EXCAVATIONS AND SLOPES
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.
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 10
The above -recommended 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 runoff be directed away from the top of temporary slope
cuts. 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.
All permanent cuts into native soil should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Water should not
be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently
exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and
improve, the stability of the surficial layer of soil. Topsoil is often placed on regraded slopes to
promote growth of vegetation. Proper preparation of the regraded surface, and use of appropriate
topsoil is necessary to prevent the topsoil from sliding off the slope. This is most likely to occur
following extended wet weather if a silty topsoil is used., On steeper slopes, it may be necessary to
"track walk" the slope or cut small grooves across the slope prior to placing the topsoil.
Any disturbance to the existing slope outside of the building limits may reduce the stability of the
slope. Damage to the existing vegetation and ground should be minimized, and any disturbed
areas should be revegetated as soon as possible. Soil from the excavation should not be placed
on the slope, and this may require the off -site disposal of any surplus soil.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS
Footing drains should be used where: (1) crawl spaces or basements will be below a structure; (2)
a slab is below the outside grade; or, (3) the outside grade does not slope downward from a
building. Drains should also be placed at the base of all earth -retaining walls. These drains should
be surrounded by at least 6 inches of 1-inch-minus, washed rock that is encircled with non -woven,
geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At its highest point, a
perforated pipe invert should be at least 6 inches below the bottom of a slab floor or the level of a
crawl space. The discharge pipe for subsurface drains should be sloped for flow to the outlet point.
Roof and surface water drains must not discharge into the foundation drain system. A typical drain
detail is attached to this report as Plate 6. For the best long-term performance, perforated PVC
pipe is recommended for all subsurface drains.
As a minimum, a vapor retarder, as defined in the Slabs -On -Grade section, should be provided in
any crawl space area to limit the transmission of water vapor from the underlying soils. Crawl space
grades are sometimes left near the elevation of the bottom of the footings. As a result, an outlet
drain is recommended for all crawl spaces to prevent an accumulation of any water that may
bypass the footing drains. Providing even a few inches of free draining gravel underneath the
vapor retarder limits the potential for seepage to build up on top of the vapor retarder.
No groundwater was observed during our field work. If seepage is encountered in an excavation, it
should be drained from the site by directing it through drainage ditches, perforated pipe, or French
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classico Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page I I
drains, or by pumping it from sumps interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of
the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away
from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations,
slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should
slope away at least 2 percent, except where the area is paved. Surface drains should be provided
where necessary to prevent ponding of water behind foundation or retaining walls. A discussion of
grading and drainage related to pervious surfaces near walls and structures is contained in the
Foundation and Retaining Walls section. Water from roof, storm water, and foundation drains
should not be discharged onto slopes; it should be tightlined to a suitable outfall located away from
any slopes.
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 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.
Fills placed on sloping ground should be keyed into the competent native soils. This is typically
accomplished by placing and compacting the structural fill on level benches that are cut into the
competent soils. 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:
slabs or 1 95%
Filled slopes and be -hind
95% for upper 12 inches oi
Beneath pavements SUbgrade; 90% below that
vel
wnere: 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 1657-91 (Modified Proctor).
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes Inc. JN 15193
May 20, 2015 Page 12
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 pits 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
pits. 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.
The recommendations presented in this report are directed toward the protection of only the
proposed structures from damage due to slope movement. Predicting the future behavior of steep
slopes and the potential effects of development on their stability is an inexact and imperfect
science that is currently based mostly on the past behavior of slopes with similar characteristics.
Landslides and soil movement can occur on steep slopes before, during, or after the development
of property. At additional cost, we can provide recommendations for reducing the risk of future
movement on the steep slopes, which could involve regrading the s opes or instal ing subsu ace
I I rf
drains or costly retaining structures. The owner of any property containing, or located close to
steep slopes must ultimately accept the possibility that some slope movement could occur,
resulting in possible loss of ground or damage to the facilities around the proposed building
residences.
This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of Classico Homes Inc. and its representatives
for specific application to this project and site. Our conclusions and recommendations are
professional opinions derived in accordance with our understanding of current local standards of
practice, and within the scope of our services. 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 contractor's 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 SERWIDES
Geotech Consultants, Inc. should be retained to provide geotechnical 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
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
Classido Homes Inc.
May 20, 2015
JN 15193
Page 13
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 - 5 Test Pit Logs
Plate 6 Typical Footing Drain Detail
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service on this project. Please contact us if you have any
questions, or if we can be of further assistance.
TRC/JHS:at
Respectfully submitted,
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
ONS
WAS
James H. Strange, Jr., P.E.
Associate
GEOTECH CONSULTANTS, INC.
GEOTECH
CONSUILTAWS, ]NC.
(S-.' MkrVS0ftAfaPPOfnt 2013)
VICMTY MAP
532 - 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington I
Job o:
Date:
Plate:
15193
May 2015
Legend:
Cj Test Pit Location
GEOTECH
CONSULTAws, uvc.
0
U)
VACKED
BLOM
FWTArOZ
Typ.
--- A
--'-*h
—40
- rw
— - 02
— Mal
SM EXPLORATION PLAN
532 - 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
b No: Date: Plate:
15193 1 . May 2015 t No Scale 1 71
5
10
15
';�
lee",
V
5
10
15
TEST PIT 1
Description
= over;
FILL I rown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose (FILL)
sWfA Gray -brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, medium -dense
Test Pit terminated at I I feet on May 1, 2015.
No groundwater observed during excavation.
Caving observed below 0 feet during excavation.
TEST PIT 2
Description
i opsm over;
Gray -brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense
15
-becomes medium -dense
Test Pit terminated at 6 feet on May 1, 2015.
No groundwater observed during excavation.
No caving observed during excavation.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
TEST PIT LOG
532 - 7th Avenue South
I Edmonds, Washington I
job I Da—te., 1��gge_d by: te:
15193 May 2015 TRC r 3
e
5
10
15
5
10
15
0�
0
't�, e '� , '\0 rjc-,
V vo �P
TEST PIT 3
Description
I opsoil over;
Brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense
-becomes medium -dense and gray -brown
Test Pit terminated at 4.5 feet on May 1, 2015.
No groundwater observed during excavation.
No caving observed during excavation.
TEST PIT 4
Description
Topsoil over,
Brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose (Fill)
-becomes loose to medium -dense and gray -brown (Possible Fill)
Test Pit terminated at 6 feet on May 1, 2015.
No groundwater observed during excavation.
Caving observed below 0 feet during excavation.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, ]NC_
TEST PIT LOG
532 - 7th Avenue' South
Edmonds, Washington
Date: Logged b-y-.—. pla=
15193 May 2015 TRC
0
5
10
15
5
10
15
TEST PIT 5
Description
ropsoil over;
Brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense
Brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense
Test Pit terminated at 8 feet on May 1, 2015.
No groundwater observed during excavation.
No caving observed during excavation.
TEST PIT 6
Description
Topsoil over;
Brown SAND with gravel, fine to coarse -grained, moist, loose to medium -dense
Test Pit terminated at 6.5 feet on May 1, 2015.
No groundwater observed during excavation.
No caving observed during excavation.
GEOTECH
CONSULTAWS, INC_
TEST PIT LOG
532 - 7th Avenue South
Edmonds, Washington
-r--
Date: Logged by.*
15193 1 May 2015 TRC I plate: 5
Slope backfill away from
foundation. Provide surface
drains where necessary.
Backfill
(See text for
requirements)
Nonwoven Geotextile
Washed Rock Filter Fabric
(7/8" min. size)
Tightline Roof Drain
(Do not connect to footing drain)
Possible Slab
%.0 '0' 000.
9 �O .0 .. . V.
6
'0
'0.10
V0.60 0 MINIM!
4" min. Vapor Retarder/Barrier and
Capillary Break/Drainage Layer
(Refer to Report text)
4" Perforated Hard PVC Pipe
(Invert at least 6 inches below
slab or crawl space. Slope to
drain to appropriate outfall.
Place holes downward.)
NOTES:
(1) In crawl spaces, provide an outlet drain to prevent buildup of water that
bypasses the perimeter footing drains.
(2) Refer to report text for additional drainage, waterproofing, and slab considerations.
GEOTECH
CONSULTANTS, INC.
FOOTING DRAIN DETAIL
532 - 7th Avenue South
I Edmonds, Washington
Job No., — Date: Pla
5,931 May2015
City of Edmonds
Critical Area Notice of Decision
Applicant: I
(4.,c;S
A^_A_s
Property Owner:
Critical Area File #:
Permit Number:
Site Location:
Parcel Number:
Z-7 0't>?' 3
Project Description:
E] 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-I 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:
1 . V"The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40.120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. ZThe proposal. does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. \,,' The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance.
Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria 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.
F1 Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
Reviewer
4-0/
Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 1211612010
5
-2—LOT 2
L
—E
5-0.
w
lk z
w
>
<
FuTI,JRE
z_sTbRY
RE
E
r 17
—E 1��
TI
T" 11
NOITH
SI T E PLAN
FPROJECTDArA
T
z
-T
LAND USE NOTES
HSGW C��.MN
114
M RVIW� M._
ITMOVS AREA-
F6MM &FERMS AW*
WMT tow W/bm & con &�w M4
wjz om 24M 5F
LOWER W.1m, M SF
WEST DWWEMY M 7
EA,T LfM OMMY Im 7
WrBowymmy
7.!W
RESU13
AM 27 2015
HDA
HAGGE DESIGN
425-242�5tG
20C-948 25G2
530 7TH AVE.
LOT 1
EDMONDS,WA
GLASSICO
HOMES, INC.
CLIENT:
C a�:lpc a ale -
SHEET TITLE::
DATE:; 6 � 1� 5
SHEET
Al
PLANNING DATA
SINGLE FAMILY PESIDENTIAL
.Name:-
Date:
Site Address: 7
Tax Parcel:
Project Description: AA91 SFIZ -
Plan Check #:
Reduced Site Plan Provided; (YES 1 0)
Zoning:
Map Page:
Corner Lot: (YES /(90
flag Lot: (YES /no
Critical Areas Determination #:
�Study Required:
El Waiver
SEPA Determination:
JR Exempt
El Needed (fo�.over 500 cubic yards of grading)
0 Fee 0 Checklist 0 APO List with notarized form
Q- Requlr�d Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
PVea-r+
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
El Detached Structures:
El Rockeries:
El Fences/Trellises:
El Bay Windows/Projecting 'Modulation:
Stairs/Deck: -4— _S� -c— -
Buildin Hiafght
Datum Point: oer>X. 1'. 1-
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height Allowed:
Actual Height: k q L4 L(
Other
Parking Required:
Parking Provided: '2
Lot. Area: 1�0_0 �� (72,Da
Maximum Lot Coverage: 35% Proposed: -3 4. cl
U
Lot Coverage Calculations: J_,L� (4D
ADU Created: (YES/0
Subdivision: �J S--2�ooq
Le�al Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES /Q
'Comment5
I- qrl 4L-
v— j e
Plan Review By:
Plannihg Data Form 07-14-09
CITY OF EDMONDS - 121 5" AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020
PHONE: 425.771.0220 - FAX: 425.771.0221 - WEB: www.edmondswa.gov
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT: PLANNING - BUILDING
July 27, 2015
Classico Homes
Attn: Joe Schmaus
Email: classicohomes@gmail.com
RE: PLAN REVIEW COMMENTS FOR BUILDING PERMIT #BLD2015-0716
NEW SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENCE AT 530 7 TH AVE. S.
Dear Mr. Schmaus:
I have reviewed the above building permit application for the Planning Division, and it was
found that the following information is needed before review can continue:
Critical Areas Report 1'
Thank you for providing the geotechnical report dated May 20, 2015. The subject site
contains and is adjacent to a slope that is steep enough to be considered both a Landslide
Hazard Area and Erosion Hazard Area as defined within the Edmonds Community
Development Code (ECDC) Chapters 23.40 and 23.80. Pursuant to ECDC 23.80.070.A. 1,
the minimum required buffer as measured from the top of the slope is equivalent to 50 feet or
the height of the slope, whichever is greater. A 15-foot critical areas setback is required in
addition to this buffer. Since the house is proposed within the minimum required buffer and
critical areas building setback, the geotechnical engineer must review the proposed
improvements within the buffer and building setback. The report must address all applicable
requirements of ECDC Chapters 23.40 and 23.80. Please provide an addendum to the
geotechnical report confirming that the proposal will meet the specific development
standards of ECDC 23.80.060 and 23.80.070, and provide any necessary additional
recommendations in order to ensure that the standards in these code sections are met.
Retaininp- walls:
The portions of the retaining walls that project into the building setbacks on the east and west
sides of the property cannot exceed three feet in height as measured over original grade. The
cross section of the retaining walls on the east side of the property indicates one and possibly two
of the retaining walls over the three foot height limit. No information is provided for the
retaining wall on the west side of the property. As such, please modify the wall(s) as necessary
to comply with the height requirements and include top of wall and original grade elevations at
five-foot intervals along the retaining walls on the east and west sides of the property so that staff
can confirm compliance with the setback requirements.
Setbacks:
Edmonds Community Development Code Section 16.20.040.0 permits uncovered and
imenclosed porches, steps, patios, and decks into a required setback not more than one-third of
the required setback, or four feet, whichever is less; provided that they are no more than 30
inches above ground level at any point. The patio shown on sheet A4 and page 2 of the grading
plans extends from the house foundation to the west property boundary, within the 5-foot
building setback. Based on the above code section the patio will need to be moved or modified.
Please amend the building and grading plans accordingly to reflect this change.
Lot Coverage:
Lot coverage is defined as the total ground coverage of all buildings or structures on a site
measured from the outside of external walls or supporting members excluding a maximum of
30" of eaves in relation to the net area (6,000 square feet) of your lot. The site plan shows a lot
coverage area of 2,543 square feet providing lot coverage of 42%, above the maximum allowable
lot coverage of 35%. Please submit revised plans to meet the allowable lot coverage.
Please Note: Additional comments from the Building Division and Engineering Division
may require changes to the site plan or building plans. Any revisions should be completed
once you have received comments from the other reviewing divisions.
Please submit revised plans and the amendment to the geotechnical report to a Development
Services Permit Coordinator. Our office hours are Mondays, Tuesdays, Thursdays, and Fridays
between 8:00am and 4:30pm. The office is closed on Wednesday. If you have any questions,
feel free to contact me at (425) 771-0220.
Sincerely,
Development Services Department - Planning Division
Sean Conrad
Associate Planner
N W Y41 SEC 25, TWP 2 7N, RNG OJE-1 W. M.
S 89058'51 E
1306.12
S 89058'51 E
60.00'
150-
__j
160
- -
0
0
6
_7�0
0
0
-1.54'
EST\LOT
PU0j
PED
T -T
2612.24'
CB TYPE 1
GE 154.19
1E S
152.29 8
1E W
152.29 8
1E N
152.29 8
TOP
WTR 152.09
B TM
150.89
1_0
10
INSTALL SIRAW WATTLES
AS REQUIRED (TYR) 16
CLEARING LIM17S (7V)
J_
-7 u)
SD
SD 1 =j 09
.9
. .. ...
SD
' �0
tlt4;09L_�
9
SS SS
D E
SHT
911
10' PUD T
AFN 20091 045 c__
0 19 j USE EXls77NG
Y Sp P VIN
A HAL T A
R11,11
WA M PWT FIR
PA CONS7RUC770N 07RAN
UIS7ING SHARED DRIVEWAY ASPHALT PA
rn rtj
60.00 �60.00) EXISTING ROCK WA
IL- --,
0 0
180 -0. M
0 .1 J 40 0 0 Z_ - 18V2 0
- 0 14
�08 -,184-- -
EXIS77NG DRY U77U77ES WTHIN EASEMENT ALREADY ENSURE 10'
7 _N*`F
c
�y
INSTALLED AS PART OF SHORT -PLAT SEPARATIVN-186--
ENSURE THE DRY U71LI17ES AREA A MINIMUM OF 3' BETWEEN WA TER
ATER, SEWER, AND
HORIZONTAL SEPARA77ON FROM W & SEWER SERVICE
STORM. LINES
CALL 3 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
(ID,MT,ND,OR,WA)
ELEC.IC-RIED �-R-.FEEN -IL-- SU-_III,I.�
TELICATV-CRANGE PROPOSED-WHRE WATER -BLUE
SAFETY PRECAUTION SKALL BE IMPLEMENTED
C
ONTRACTOR(S) AT ALL TFMNCNING IN A=RMCE
WITH CURRENT OSHA STANDARDS
,
CA
Zf
�ZTop 0
r1614T OF CA
SEE SE(
ON SHE,
WALL EL
00/
-4-
L__Q I
n
X-0
00
-
480�
Q
T OF WALL
ABU'
-170
NEW I' HY
FOR EASTLOT
Eftft�
(A
CA
0-
0
'0 TE: EX
T
EST LOT
ri-
CB
TYPE I
CB
TYPE I
GE
152. J4
GE
155.25
1E
N 150.64 6
1E
W 15J. 05 8
1E
S 150.74 4
1E
S 15J. 65 8
B TM 148.64
EE
E 15J. 05 8
B TA4 151.95
z
8 MTL
8
PVC
CB TYPE I
GE 157.09
00
CL
LJ
c)
0
Wco
u, 6,Y-614r
Cy� Vic-0
;:,Sv( �
k " - W
�MH
GSMJ. 30
IE SW 170.80 8'
QF 1E SE 168.70 8"
00 1E N 168.50 8"
7M 16Z10
00
0
'
"
I S 89
59
14
E
658.75 (BASIS OF BEARING)
SS
rp " ul "u r7l
CEDAR S I
IBA§S_01�
R11W 177.A' 71`8
1E N 164.45 8
0
1E E 164.55 MAXIMUM DRIVEWAY SLOPE
ALLOWED 14%
CB TYPE I
GE 176. JO
�STREET
1E NE 174.20 8 SIGN
BTU 174. 00
DESCRIPTION
Address City Review Comments dated July 21, 2015, Show ArchitectTs revis,
ResDond to Citv Review Comment letter d6tedR-11-1.5
F
DA TE
3-24-
BMP T5 0 POST CONSNUC77ON SOIL QUALITY AND DEPTH.
ALL DIS7URBED AREAS, (NOT 07HERMSE COVERED BY IMPERWOUS AREA), ON
AND OFF SITE, SHALL MEET THE COMPOST AMENDED REQUIRSWENTS OF BYP
T51,3 IN ME 2005 DOE STORYWATER MANUAL VOLUME V, CHAPTER 5.
CALCULATED AMENDMENT RATES MAY BE MET THROUGH USE OF TOPSOIL AND
DUFF FROM THE PROPERTY AMENDED TO MEET THE CARBON TO N17ROGEN
RA770 REQUIREMENTS AND MEE71NG THE CONTAMINANT STANDARDS OF GRADE
A COMPOST
TOPSOIL DEPTHS SHALL HAW A MINIMUM DEPTH OF EfGHT INCHES EXCEPT
14HERE 7REE ROOTS LIMIT THE DEPTH OF INCORPORA770N OF AhIMENOMENTS
NEEDED TO MEET 771E CR17ERIA.
SUBSOIL BELOW THE TOPSOIL LAYER SHOULD BE SCARIRED AT LEAST 4
INCHES Iff TH SOME INCORPORA 17ON OF THE UPPER MA TERIAL TO A VOID
S7RA71RED LAYERS 14HERE FEASIBLE
CONSTRUCTION SWPP ELEMENTS
0 ELEMENT 1. MARK CLEARING LJM17S. PLAs77c,
METAL, OR STAKE WIRE FENCE MAY BE USED TO
MARK THE CLEARING LMITS.
(D ELEMENT 2., ESTABLISH CONSTRUC77ON ACCESS.
USE EXIS77NG PA VEL) DRIVEWAY
(D ELEMENT J.- CONTROL FLOW RA 7ES
ELEMENT 4: INSTALL SEDIMENT CON7ROLS,
0
0 BE STABILIZED AS
ELEMENT 5. STABILIZE SLWLS SOILS T
L1S7ED IN THE COVER METHOD NOTES.
ELEMENT 6. PR07ECT SLOPES. CUT AND FILL SLOPES
SHALL BE DESIGNED AND CONS7RUCTED IN A MANNER THAT
WILL MINIMIZE' EROSION.
ELEMENT 7. PR07ECT DRAIN INLETS
ELEMENT 8. STABILILE CHANNELS AND OUTLETS. NIA
ELEMENT 9. CONTROL POLLUTANTS. ALL POLLUTANTS,
INCLUDING WASTE MATERIALS AND DEMOL17701V DEBRIS THAT
OCCUR ON -SITE DURING CONSIRUC71ON SHALL BE HANDLED
AND DISPOSED OF IN A MANNER THAT DOES NOT CAUSE
COIVTAYINA77ON OF STORMWATER.
ELEMENT 10. CONTROL DE-WAIERING
ELEMENT 11: MAINTAIN BYPS.
ELEMENT 12. MANAGE THE PROJECT
GRADING QU
-AN7777ES
CUT' JOO CY (INCLUDES CRAWL SPACE
& A ODIL BSM T EXCA VA 770N)
FILL.. 110 CY
GRADING OUAN7777ES ARE ROUGH CALCULA71ONS THAT
DO NOT TAKE INTO ACCOUNT SHRINKAGE OR SWELLAGE.
CASPERS ST
EDMONDS
FERRY
TERMINAL
MAIN
ST
En
>: cn
cn
W
En
WALNUT ST
z
CEDAR
ST
0
�00/jv W�
V M-R,
r-
PINE ST
00
con
0+1
110
FIR
ST
HAUL ROUTE
N, T, S,
CONSTRUCTION SEQUENCE NOTES:
I. SCHEDULE A PRE-CONS7RUC7701V MEEIING WITH CITY ENGINEERING DI SON AT 425-771-0220, EXT 1
_RCE IS REQUIRED. V7 1 326. TWO DAY
(48 HR) NO
2 REWEW TEMPORARY EROSION AND SEDIMENT CON7ROL NOTES.
J. CALL FOR U71UTY LOCATES.
4. INSTALL TESC MEASURES AND MAINTAIN DUST CONTROL MILE PREVEN71NG DISTURBANCE OF ANY AREAS OF
WGETA77ON OUTSIDE 771E CONS7RUCTION ZONE
5 HAVE EROSION CONTROL MEASURES INSPECTED BY CITY OF EDMONDS CITY ENGINEERING INSPECTOR. ALL TEMPORARY
SEDIMENTA7701V AND EROSION CONTROL MEASURES MUST BE IN PLACE AND INSPECTED PRIOR TO ANY CON57RUC770N OR
S17E CLEARING EROSION AND SEDiMENTAnON CONTROL PRAC77CES ANDIOR DEVICES SHA BE MAINTAIN UN L
PERMANENT WGETATION IS ESTABLISHED. ED n
6 DEMOLISH EXIS77NG STRUCTURES 14HERE APPLICABLE
Z ROUGH GRADE S17E AS REQUIRED To INSTALL DRAINAGE FEATURES.
8 CLEAR, GRUB & ROUGH GRADE SITE REVEGETATE DISTVRBED AREAS NOT SUBJECT TO ADD177ONAL SURFACE
DISTURBANCE IMMEDIA TEI Y AFTER ROUGH GRADING. (OTHER EXPOSED AREAS SHALL BE STABILIZED PER EROSION
CONTROL N07ES BELOW)
9 INSTALL U77U71ES AND OTHER SITE IMPROMWENTs, INCLUDING FRONTAGE IMPROVEMENTS WHERE APPLICABLE.
11. STABILIZE AND COMPOST AMEND ALL EXPOSED SOILS PRIOR To REVEGETA71ON OF EN77RE S17E
12. ESTABLISH LANDSCAPING AND PERMANENT VEGET4770N. ALL TEMPORARY EROSION CONTROL MEASURES SHALL
BE REMOVED UPON FINAL SITE STABIUZA77ON AND APPROVAL BY CITY INSPECTOR.
UTILITY CONTACT LIST
SEWER &
CITY OF EDMONDS
WA 7ER
121-57H AVENUE NORTH
EDMONDS, WA 98026
(425) 771-0241
ELECTRIC:
SNOHOMISH COUNTY P.U.D.
21018 HIGHWAY 99,
EDMONDS 98026
(425) 670-3200
GAS..
PUGET SOUND ENERGY
10885 NE 47H ST
BELLEVUE, WA 98004
(425) 452 -1234
�`iCNTERXONTRAGTUIII RESPONSIBLE
FOR LOOMING ALL ON -SITE UTILITIES.
RELOCATIO"EVISION TO ANY UTILITIES
MAY REQUIRE SEPAAAIE PERMIT
Appli-.ant Rhall rePAL/replace all dame.ge to
ALL EXPOSED GLI FiFACES TO ubilties or fruntage irnpocn,cments in 0.1b;
BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DX13 rlqht-o�way per City sf.inim.11.1ft that io cuu-sed
or occurs during the pern,itted prcioclk.
OWNER
CONTR
rp p I !,--,fN n I R h
utpfties or ftcj
IrI97t_ _Way
4
5
U77LITY CONFLICT NOTE.
THE CONTRACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VER"NG THE LOCA770N, DIMENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXIS77NG U17LI77ES WHETHER
SHOW ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING THE U77LI77ES AND SURVEYING THE HORIZONTAL AND VER77CAL LOCA77ONS PRIOR TO
CONS7RUC77ON- THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING U77LITY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXIS77NG
U71LI77ES A T THEIR LOCA 71ONS OF NEW U77LITY CROSSINGS To pHYSICALL y VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EAIST LOCA 77ON OF
SAID U77LI77ES AS SHOKM ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIFIED PUBLIC INFORMA77ON AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIA770N.
CABLE. COUCAST
12645 STONE AVE N
SEA TRE
(877) 824-2288
FIRE EDMONDS FIRE DISTTICT (SCFD /1)
DEPARTMENT 121-57H AVENUE NOR7H
(EDMONDS CITY HALL)
FIRE MARSHAL: (425) 771-0211
APPROVED FOR
CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DATE:
Le
BY: `:W 4/
u, �I TY 64GINEEROG DIVUISION
TOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR
EROSION CONTROL AND DRAINAGE STREET FUE:
SHEET INDEX
1. GRADING & 7ESC PLAN RESUP
2. DRAINAGE, SE*ER, WA7ER, UTIL.177ES D 7
J. PRORL& NO TES & DETAILS SEP 14 2015
4. LANDSCAPE BLOCK WALL 1`_-5' PRORIE BUILDING D�FAFVlh,iiNl
EAST HO USE GRY OF SOMONUS
WAA
GRADING, TESC & SWPP FOR EAST HOUSE
0 DONNA L BRESKE� PE, �LLC
FOR
6621 FOSTEk SLOUGH.RD.
CLASSICO HOMES 7TH & CEDAR
SNOHOMISH. A 98290.
W
-2 . T'�67 TAX ID: 27033600109600
G/STE PHONE (425) 334-9980 PFN: BLDG20150716
Classico Homes, Joe Schmaus
/ONAL DEVELOPER.
SCAM. 1"= 10' ISSUE DA TE. 7-21-1.5 SHT NO. 1 OF 4
N W Y41 SEC 25, TWP 2 7N, RNG 03E, W. M.
S 89058'51 " E
1306.12'
S 89058'51 E
60.00
150
-----------
J-
16 0
0
0
_T_
j-1-7-
F_ -1
0-) ES LOT
0
0
PUD
PE09STAL
1.54 1
2612.24
CB
TYPE I
GE
154..19
1E
S 152.29 8
1E
W 152.29 8
IE
N 152.29 8
TOP WTR 152.09
B TM 150.89
T -T
--T
Y
-E E
-k-T -T
��T
EXISTING YARD BASIN
SD SD
T
W= 174.75
IE=171.12 IN & OUT (AC)
11
I
10"PUD ESHT
S S
EX CB TYPE 1
GRATED LIDI
1(40
AFN 200911190453
WIVANED
TOP= 174.09
:J1
STING SHARED DRIVEWAY ASPH ALT PAVIN
IE(W)= 169.92-IN
rn
rrl
IE(NE)=169.92-OUT
180
0
-8
EXIS71NG DRY U77U77ES WTHIN EASEMENT ALREADY
INSTALLED AS PART OF SHORT -PLAT
ENSURE THE DRY U71LI71ES AREA A MINIMUM OF 3'
HORIZONTAL SEPARA71ON FROW WATER, SEKER, AND
STORM.
LEGEND
EXIS71NG MONUMENT AS DESCRIBED
CIBI
CATCH BASIN INLET
@MH
STORY BASIN MANHOLE
01
SE14ER MANHOLE
'Co
SEVIER CLEANOUT
x \VV
WAIER VALVE
63 wM
111A TER MEIER
�i H
FIRE HYDRANT
N1CV
IRRAGA77ON CON77?OL VALVE
��v
GAS VALVE
-o-Up
UTILITY POLE
GUY ANCHOR
TP
7ELEPHONE BOX (VAULT)
�60.00' EXISTING ROCK WA�L-
I BP2-0. M 0 14
IB4
ENSURE 10'
SEPAROON -jR-186--
BETWEN WA
& SEKER SERWCE
LINES
TP IELEPHONE PEDESTAL
��VB
MAIL BOX
N
F0077NG DRAIN
STORY DRAINAGE LINE
SEWER LINE
WA 7ER LINE
P. U. D. VA UL T
TRAFFIC SIGNAL BOX
(M)
COURSE OR DISTANCE MEASURED
PER THIS SURVEY
STORM DRAIN MANHOLE
TBR
TO BE REMOVED
:,- 159.4j,-Fl-
158-77 IOU T-
Cf) CB TYPE I CB TYPE I
GE 152. J4 GE 155.25
1E N 150.64 6 1E W 15J. 05 8
1E S 150.74 4 1E S 15J. 65 8
B TM 748.64 EE E 15J. 05 8
B TM 151.95
00
8�" M TL �/'8 PVC
n
Cf)
00
f-I
_EX
CB , -�PE I
WA 4 NED GRA TEel
TOP.- 158.9
,IE( =155.90-INI
��4" D,
0 12.
'ONCRE
F INLET
OP=159
, +/.
-cl--158.82
OU7
I WEST
- CONWEIE
','UTIER
EXIS71NG
� SEKI
I CO
LA
COVE
i TO BE
UiO
IF N(4'
INSMI
r
�ED-XS
PLAT
"Y, I'm
FRD
PAR T Of
SHOR 7
E%IS71N
7'SIDE
SEKR
ry
I Lift-,
TOP= 1 4.
UD
E=16
I =16 I
W
--z
SEE SECT0
DEI
111L w�'-A
ON SHEE7
2 FOR
BLO
WALL ELE
71ON
)ETA S
S
CIL,
Li
LQ
__j
In
Q::
00
LLJ
0
A
0
�-1 70
NEW in
FOR EAS LOT
(j) 0
W
�NO TE. EX F1
--J1v-4*wy_
%EST LOT
�yw �wl
0- F *k
rovammo�/
on 04,
w
___<LSDUH
GE 17J. JO
1E SW 170.80 8'
1E SE 168.70 8"
1E N 168.50 8'
00 IU 16Z 10
S 89059'14" E
6 5 8. 7 5 BASIS OF- BEARING)
S s
rp " L-1
CEDAR Si xt�.InET
sso�-1
RIM 177.20
1E N 164.45 8
1E E 164.55 8
CB TYPE I
GE 176. JO �STREET
1E NE 174.20 8 S1 GN
B TM 174. 00
REVISIVA DESCRIPTION DATE
1 Add this sheet per City Review Comments dated 7-21-15, Add revised house per architect 8-24-15
2- Respond to City Review Comments per letter dated 9-11-15 9-14-15
3
4
5
U77LITY CONFLICT NOTE.
7HE CON7RAC70R SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIFWNG THE LOCA770N, DIAENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXIS77NG U71LI71ES WIETHER
SHOW ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY P07HOLING THE U71LI77ES AND SURVEWNG THE HORIZONTAL AND VER77CAL LOCA77ONS PRIOR TO
CONSTRUCRON. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING U77UTY LOCATE AT 1-800-424-5555 AND THEN POTHOLING ALL OF THE EXIS71NG
U71LI71ES AT THEIR LOCA71ONS OF NEW U71LITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY VERIFY WHETHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EXIST LOCA7701V OF
SAID U77LI77ES AS SHOW ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON THE UNVERIRED PUBLIC INFORMA7101V AND ARE SURECT TO VARIA710N.
CALL 3 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
(ID,MT,ND,OR,WA)
ELECTRIC - RED SEWER -GREEN GASIOIL-YELLOW SURVEY -PINK
WETY PRECAUTION 8 LBElMpLEmENTEDBy TR1CATV-ORANGE PROPOSED-WHRE WATER -BLUE
CONTRACTORfS)AT ALL TRENCHING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CURRENT OSHA STANDARDS
2.
3.
4.
0 20 5.
isommossum�
Scale 1 20' 6.
xj . V -1 .
WWAS
,p, 27
GIs \0
A
CEMENT CONCRETE
DRAINAGE NOTES
A LOCKING GRATED LID SHALL BE INSTALLED ON ALL CATCH BASINS
UNLESS OTHERMSE NOTED.
ALL CATCH BASINS SHALL HAVE EIGHTEEN (18") MINIMUM SUMP,
TRAFFIC BEARING CB RIM, AND PIPE REQUIRED FOR ALL DRIVING
SURFACE LOCATIONS.
ALL PIPE MATERIALS SHALL BE PVC AS7M 3034-SDR35, ADS(N-12 OR
HEAVY DUTY HIGHWAY GRADE), DUC77LE IRON, CONCRETE, OR EQUAL
AS APPROVED BY THE CITY ENGINEER.
ALL NEW OR RECONSTRUCTED IMPERWOUS DRIVEWAY AND PARKING
AREAS MUST BE SERVED BY AN OILIWATER SEPARATOR BEFORE
DISCHARGE INTO STORM DRAIN SYSTEM OR PUGET SOUND. AS A
MINIMUM, OILIWA7ER SEPARATOR SHALL CONSIST OF A TYPE-1 CATCH
BASIN KITH A PVC TEE INSTALLED INSIDE K17H 12" MINIMUM TAILPIPE
AND 12" MINIMUM RISER PIPE. ALSO REQUIRED MINIMUM 12"
CLEARANCE FROM BOTTOM OF TAILPIPE TO BOTTOM OF CB AND
MINIMUM 6" CLEARANCE FROM TOP OF RISER PIPE TO TOP OF CB.
ANY DEWA71ON FROM APPROVED PLANS KILL REQUIRE WRITTEN
APPROVAL. ALL CHANGES SHALL BE SUBMITTED TO THE CITY.
A COPY OF APPROVED STORM WATER PLANS MUST BE ON S17E
WHENEVER CONSTRUCTION IS IN PROGRESS.
VALLEY GUTTER 1*1 600
y
�'A
-4 STREET
�_24
CONCRETE VALLEY GUTTER
C17Y OF EDMONDS S17E CLASSInCA770N WORKSHEET
Typ e Area (square feet)
1. Non -Regulated
-'5
Regula
t ted
2. Replaced 0 0
3. New (Post 1977) -) -) -) -) -) + 4,277
Total Regulated Impervious Area - 4,277
4. (Mitigation Required if in excess of 2000 sf)
5. Total Area Mitigated by Existing Stormwater Management System(s) - 0
6. Regulated Area Not Yet Mitigated 0
Z Area proposed to be Mitigated by Low Impact Development Techniques 0
Area proposed to be Mitigated through Conventional SW Techniques�= 4,277
ACCEPTABLE TIGHTLNE
MATERIAL
3DR 35
SCH 40
N -12
F810 HANCCq,
WATER & SEWER
INSPECTIONS REQ'D
CALL 425-771-0220 EXT. 1126
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DATE: H_ 16-19
BY: -VIAOrld, �W �rAhi-6- UwLed
V / CITY VNGI'NEERIN� DIVISION
WATERSHED:
SHELLBARGER CREEK
AESUB
SEP 14 2015
DEPAIN MENI
EAST HOUSE aU F SOMONDS
DRAINAGE, SEWER, WATER, UTILITIES
FOR
CLASSICIO HOMES EAST HOUSE 7TH & CEDAR
TAX ID: 27032400210100 PFN: BLD20150716
DEVROPER. Classico Homes, Joe Schmaus
SCALE. I ISSUE DA TE. 7-21-1 SHT NO. 2 OF 4
= 10, 57
NW 114., SEC 25., TWP 27N., RNG 03E., W.M.
200
190
180
170
160
150
140
0+00
DEVELOPED SITE IMPERVIOUS AREAS
EAST & WEST LOTS
AREA=1,382 SF
PROPOSED IMPERVIOUS AREA:
WEST HOUSE w/DECK & COV'D DECK 2644 SF
EAST HOUSE wICOVERED DECK 2462 SF
EAST LOWER DRIVEWAY J08 SF
WEST DRIVE WA Y 706 SF
EAST UPPER DRIVEWAY 1, J82 SF
EAST ENTRY WALKWAY 76 SF
EAST HOUSE PA 770 49 SF
TO TA L 7,62 7 SF
VVEWAY
6 SF
SF
IMPERVIOUS AREAS USED PER 2008
SHORT PLAT DESIGN FOR SIZING SHARED
STORMWATER DETENTION VAULT.
r
WEST HOUSE
J097 SF
EXCESS CAPACITY IN DETEN77ON SYSTEM.,
8,126 7,607 519 SF
- - - - - - - - -
DRI VEW4 Y
425 SF
EAST HOUSE
2500,SF
IMPERVIOUS AREAS USED FOR DE7EN77ON SYSTEM
DESIGN, (DESIGNED IN 2008)
HOUSE /1 WITH DECK J097 SF
HOUSE 12 2500 SF
DRIVE WA Y 425 SF
DRIVE WA Y 2104 SF
TO TA L 8126 SF
EXIS77NG GROUND
SEC7701V 'A -A'
WALL HEIGHT
2.5' BLO,'K
P
PROPOSED HOUSE
-2.0' BLOCK WALL HEIGHT
__20'EASEMENT
EAXIISIING ROCKERY
DRIVEWAY IMURN-AROLNID
EXISIING GROVND
SEC770JV `A -A"
AREA
J.0' BLOCK WALL HEIGHT
13 SHARED ACCESS
DRIVE PA WNG
2%_
0Z
1.52X
2.761
17J.50
I*DISTA�
[��)SS
2.20*
F-1 2.23*
ICE ABOVE EXlSflNG GRADE
SEC7101V NA-
28' BLOCK WALL HEIGHT
TOP OF ACCESS UD=161.0
INSTALL RISERS TO FINISH GRADE
AS REQUIRED
171.
EA7S
6. 2.z
�6 6.20
64.2
LONER
.25' BLOCK WALL HEIGHT
DRIVEWAY
P/t
20�-4 112'
EX. Call
A T
,Ty 11NE
VANED GRAIE
ZA VING
161.72' LONER GARAGE TOP OF
SLAB
RIM= 174.09
IE=169.92
EX. YB13
TOP=172.0 (L
IE=169.17
_j
TOP TO 171.0)
IS
EXIS71NG STORM DRA
DXE7EEN71ON VAULT
EX. C812
EX. )W4
VANED GR47E
RIM=158.9
TOP=164.8
IE=155.90
IE=161.10
R41SE LID TO
GRADE AT TOP OF PLANIER AS REQUIREJ
1
0+20
LARTHREK RES-NIC77ON AfOlE.,
EARTHWORK IS RESTRIC70 BEW7EFN OCTOBER I AND
APRIL 30 AND ANY EARIHWRK IN THE IS 77ME PERIOD
REQUIRES APPROVAL FROM BOTH THE GE07ECHNICAL
ENGINEER OF RECORD AND THE CITY BUILDING OFFICIAL
0+40
0+60
0+80
1+00
LANDSCAPE BLOCK WALL SECTION CUT "A -A"
SCALE 1'-10'
CALL 3 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
(ID,MTND,OR,WA)
ELECTRIC - RED SEWER -GREEN GAMIL-YELLOW SURVEY -PINK
SAFETY PRECAUTION SHALL BE IMPLEMB11TED BY TELICATV-ORANGE PROPOSED -WHITE WATER - BLUE
CONTRACTOR(S) AT ALL TRENCHING IN ACCORDANCE
WITH CURRENT OSHA STANDARDS
1+20
1+40
200
190
180
170
160
150
-440
1+60
CITY INSPECTION REQUIRED ON ALL EROSION CONTROL
MEASURES BEFORE WORK CAN BEGIN,
4
4. .
A 4-
TE
CB
FILTER SOCK WITH
OVER FLOW HOLES
CATCH BASIN
STRAW BALES MAY BE USED IN
CERTAIN CIRCUMSTANCES (SEE
DETAIL E111). THIS APPLICAITON
SHALL BE MAINTAINED AT ALL
TIMES DURING CONSTRUCITON
PERIOD.
TEMPORARY SEDIMENT TRAP FOR CBS
NOT TO SCALE
NOTES:
1. STRAW ROLL INSTALLATION REQUIRES THE
PLACEMENT AND SECURE STAKING OF THE ROLL
IN A TRENCH, 3"-5" DEEP, DUG ON CONTOUR.
RUNOFF MUST NOT BE ALLOWED TO RUN UNDER
OR AROUND ROLL
2. STRAW ROLLS MUST BE PLACED ALONG
SLOPE CONTOURS.
3. SPACING DEPENDS ON SOIL TYPE AND
SLOPE STEEPNESS.
10',
STRAW WATTLES
NOT TO SCALE
Edmonds STD E1.3
STAKED FILTER ROLLS
SLOPE
SEDIMENT, ORGANIC MATTER, AND NATIVE
SEEDS ARE CAPTURED BEHIND THE
ROLLS. to
DRAINAGE-n
SITE GRADING AND EROSION CONTROL NOTES:
1. ALL GRADING SHALL COMPLY TO CHAP7ER 18 OF 7HE INTERNA7701VAL BUILDING CODE
2. THE PLACEMENT OF EXCAVATED MA7ERIAL WERE CONSISTENT NTH SAFETY AND SPACE CONSIDERA77ONS SHALL BE
PLACED ON THE UPHILL SIDE OF 7RENCHES.
j. TE.S.C. MEASURES SHALL BE INSTALLED PRIOR TO ANY SITE NVRK (SEE ATTACHED DETAILED TES.C. PLAN).
4. PUBLIC STREETS ARE TO BE KEPT CLEAR OF DIRT AND DEBRIS DURING EXCAVA77ON AND RU OPERA 770NS.
4. STOCKPILES ARE TO BE LOCATED IN SAFE AREAS AND ADEQUATELY PROTEC70 WITHIN 24 HOURS TO PREWNT
EROSION. HYDROSEED PREFERRED.
6. DURING PERIODS OF NET KE417HER, THE GRADING CON7RACTOR SHALL TAKE ALL PRECAU77ONS TO LIMIT SURFACE
DISIURBANCE AND PR07ECT THE S17E GRADING AREA FROM EXCESSIVE RUNOFF EROSION.
Z AREAS TO RECEIVE' FILL SHALL BE CLEARED OF ALL VEGET47ION AND DELETERIOUS MATIER.
8. ALL FILL MA7ERIALS USED SHALL BE FREE OF WGETA1701V AND DELETERIOUS MATIER AND SHALL NOT CONTAIN ROCKS
GREATER THAN 6 INCHES IN DIAMETER.
9. SIRUCIURALnLLs SHALL BE PLACED IN 8' TO 10' THICK LOOSE HORIZONTAL LIFTS AND SPREAD UNIFORMLY
10 ALL S7RUCIURAL FILLS SHALL BE COMPACTED TO A MINIMUM OF 95X OF MAXIMUM DENSITY AS DETERMINED BY MODIFIED
PROCTOR TEST (ASTM D-1557-70).
DISTURBED AREAS TO BE STABILIZED NTH HYDROSEED OR S7RAW MULCH WITHIN 24 HOURS OF compLE77oN oFnNAL
GRADING DURING NET WATHER.
COVER METHODS: �D
PR07ECT DISIURBED SLOPES BY MULCHING (2'�-4- THICKNESS). THIS CAN BE DONE BEFORE OR AFTER
PERMANENT SEEDING. THE TYPES OF MULCHES AVAILABLE ARE DESCRIBED BELOW (TAKEN FROM THE
D.O.E. MANUAL):
STRAW - MOST COMMONLY USED IN CONJUNC77ON NTH SEEDING. ITS USE IS RECOMMENDED WERE IMMEDIATE PR07EC710M
IS REQUIRED AND PREFERABLY WERE THE NEED FOR PR07EC7701V NLL BE LESS THAN 3 MON71IS, THE S7RAW SHOULD
COME FROM NIEA T OR OA TS, AND MA Y BE SPREAD BY HAND OR MACHINE. S7RA W CAN BE WINDBLOWN AND MUST BE
ANCHORED DOW (ROLLING OR PUNCHING INTO SOIL, COVERING NTH NETTING, SPRAYING TACKIFIER).
CORN STALKS - THESE SHOULD BE SHREDDED INTO 4 TO 6-INCH LENGTHS. STALKS DECOMPOSE SLOKY AND ARE
RESISTANT TO WNDBLOW
WOOD CHIPSIBARK CHIPS - SUITABLE FOR AREAS THAT WLL NOT BE CLOSELY MOKED, AND AROUND ORNAMENTAL
PLAN77NGS. CHIPS DECOMPOSE SLOWLY AND DO NOT REQUIRE TACKING. WOOD CHIPS MUST BE TREATED NIH 12 POUNDS
NITROGEN PER TON TO PREVENT NUTRIENT DEFICIENCY IN PLANTS (NOT NECESSARY FOR BARK). WOOD AND BARK CHIPS
TEND TO WASH DOW SLOPES OF MORE THAN 6 PERCENT AND CREATE PROBLEMS BY CLOGGING INLET GRATES, ETC. AND
ARE THEREFORE NOT RECOMMENED FOR USE IN THOSE AREAS.
WOOD FIBER - USED IN HYDRO -SEEDING OPERAIIONS, APPLIED AS PART OF THE SLURRY THIS FORM OF MULCH DOES NOT
PROVIDE SUFFICIENT PR07EC77ON TO ERODIBLE SOILS TO BE USED ALONE DURING THE HEAT OF SUMMER OR FOR LATE FALL
SEDINGS. WOOD FIBER HMRO-SEED SLURRIES MA Y BE USED TO TACK S7RA W MULCH. 7HIS COMBINA 770N 7REA TWENT IS
WEU SU170 FOR S7EEP SLOPES AND CRI77CAL AREAS.
NETS AND MA IS - USED ALONE, NET17NG DOES NOT RETAIN SOIL MOISTURE OR MODIFY SOIL TEMPERA IURE. IT STABILIZES
THE SOIL SURFACE NHILE GRASSES ARE BEING ESTABLISHED, AND IS USEFUL IN GRASSED WA 7ERWA YS AND ON SLOPES.
LIGHT NETIING MAY ALSO BE USED TO HOLD OTHER MULCHES IN PLACE. 17S RELATI'VELY HIGH COST MAKES IT MOST
SUITABLE FOR SMALL SITES.
TEMPORARY COVER:
�D
7EMPORARY SEED TO PROVIDE SOIL STABILIZA7101V BY PLAN71NG GRASSES AND LEGUMES TO AREAS N11CH WOULD REMAIN
NRE FOR MORE MAN 7 DAY5 (MOM MAY I TO SEPT 30) OR 2 DAYS (FROM OCT I TO APRIL 30) NIERE PERMANENT
COVER IS NOT NECESSARY OR APPROPRIATE. A MINIMUM OF 2-4 INCHES OF TILLED TOPSOIL IS REQUIRED FOR THE
SEEDBED. PLAN71NG SHOULD PREFERABLY BE DONE BETKEN APRIL I AND #JNE JO, AND SEPT I THROUGH OCT if. IF
PLAN71NG IS DONE IN THE MONTHS OF JULY AND AUGUST, IRRIGA71ON MAY BE REQUIRED. IF PLAN71NG IS DONE BETWEEN
NOV I AND MARCH 31, MULCHING SHALL BE REQUIRED IMMEDIATELY AFTER PLANIING. THE SEED MIX OF RED70P(IOX),
ANNUAL RYE(40%), CHEKINGS FESCUE(40X), AND *HITE DUTCH CLOVER(IOX) SHALL BE USED AS A GUIDE (SNOHOMISH
COUNTY TO APPROVE SEED MIX). 1HYDRO-SEEDING4 APPLICA77ONS K17H APPROVED SEED-MULCH-FER17LIZER MIXTURES
MAY ALSO BE USED. THE SOIL COWR METHODS LISTED UNDER "COVER DURING WN7ER COND1770NS* MAY ALSO BE USED
AS TOWPORARY COVER AT ANY TIME.
CLEAR PLAS77C COVERING PR07ECT DIS7URBED SLOPES BY COVERING NTH CLEAR PLASTIC. THIS METHOD
OF COVER IS GOOD FOR PR07EC77NG BARE AREAS WHICH NEED IMMEDIATE COVER AND FOR NNTER
PLAN77NGS. IT IS ALSO QUICK AND EASY TO PLACE. THE SHEE71NG NLL RESULT IN RAPID, 100% RUNOFF
N11CH MAY CAUSE SERIOUS EROSION PROBLEMS ANDIOR FLOODING AT THE BASE OF SLOPES UNLESS THE
RUNOFF IS PROPERLY JN7ERCEP7O AND SAFELY CONVEYED BY A COLLEC71NG DRAIN. THIS IS SIRICILY A
TEMPORARY MEASURE, SO PERMANENT STABILIZA77ON IS S77LL REQUIRED. THE PLAS77C MUST BE ANCHORED.
CLEAR PLAS77C SHEE77NG SHALL HAVE A MINIMUM THICKNESS OF 6 MIL AND MEET IHE REQUIREMENTS OF
WSDOTIAPNA SEC77ON 9-14.5. COVERING SHALL BE INSTALLED AND MAINTAINED TIGHTLY IN PLACE BY
USING SANDBAGS OR 77RES ON ROPES NTH A MAXIMUM 10 FOOT GRID SPACING IN ALL DIREC71ONS. ALL
SEAMS SHALL BE TAPED OR 14UGH70 DOW FULL LENGTH AND THERE SHALL BE AT LEAST A I TO 2
FOOT OVERLAP OF ALL SEAMS. SEAMS SHOULD THEN BE ROLLO AND STAKED OR TIED. COVERING SHALL
BE INSTALLED IMMEDIATELY ON AREAS SEEDED BETHEEN NOV I TO MAR 1, AND REMAIN UN77L VEGETA71ON
IS FIRMLY ESTABLISHED. MEN THE COVERING IS USED ON UNSEEDED SLOPES, IT SHALL BE LEFT IN
PLACE UN77L THE NEXT SEEDING PERIOD. SHEE17NG SHOULD BE TOED IN AT 771E TOP OF IHE SLOPE TO
PREVENT SURFACE FLOW BENEATH THE PLAS77C. SHEE71NG SHOULD BE REMOVED AS SOON AS IS
POSSIBLE ONCE WGETA 71ON IS NELL GROWN TO PREVENT BURNING 7HE VEGETA 77ON THROUGH THE PLAS71C
SHEETING.
MAINTENANCE OF EROSION CONTROL ELEMENTS:
Q
ALL EROSION AND SEDIMENT CONTROL BYPs SHALL BE REGULARLY INSPECTED AND MAINTAINED BY IHE OMER TO ENSURE
CONTINUED PERFORMANCE OR THEIR INTENDED FUNCTION. ALL MAINTENANCE AND REPAIR SHALL BE CONDUCTED IN
ACCORDANCE IWTH THE MANUAL AND UN17L CONSTRUC770N AND LANDSCAPING IS COMPLE70 AND THE P07EN77AL FOR
ON -SITE EROSION HAS PASSED.
SIL TA 71ON BARRIERS SHALL BE INSPEC70 IMMEDIA 7EL Y AFIER EACH RAINFALL AND A T LEAST DAIL Y DURING PROLONGED
RAINFALL SEDIMENT DEPOS17S SHOULD BE REMOVED AF7ER EACH RAINFALL. THEY MUST BE REMOVED NIEN THE LEVEL OF
DESPOS71ON REACHES APPROXIMA TEL Y ON -HALF OF THE HEIGHT OF 771E BARRIER. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOS17S REMAINING IN
PLACE AF7ER 774E BARRIER IS NO LONGER REQUIRED SHALL BE DRESSED 70 CONFORM To THE EXISTING GRADE, COMPOST
AMENDED AND SEEDED AN DOR OTHERWISE PERMANENTLY STABILIZED.
07HER BYPS AS REQlUlRED BY THE CITY AND APPROPRIATE FOR THE S17E TO M177GATE THE E C IN EA D RUN
FFE IS OF CR SE OFF
SHALL BE APPLIED.
MAINTENANCE OF SILTATION BARRIERS:
8�-10' DIA SIL TA 1ION BARRIERS SHALL BE JNSPEC7O IMMEDIA TEL Y WIER EACH RAINFALL AND A T LEAST DAL Y DURING PROLONGED
8"-10" DIA RAINFALL NECESSARY REPAIRS TO BARRIERS OR REPLACEMENT SHALL BE ACCOMPLISHED PROMPTLY SEDIMENT
DEPOSITS SHOULD BE REMOVED WIER EACH RAINFALL THEY MUST BE REMOVED MEN THE LEVEL OF DEPOS17ION
REACHES APPROXIMATELY ONE-HALF THE HEIGHT OF THE BARRIER. SHALL BE DRESSED TO CONFORM TO THE EXIS77NG
GRADE, PREPARED AND SEEDED. ANY SEDIMENT DEPOSITS REMAINING IN PLACE AFIER THE BARRIER IS NO LONGER
1" X l" STAKE REQUIRED.
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DATE:
BY:
CITY ENGINEERING DIVISION
------ N
EAST HO UISE
ESUB
SEP 14 2015
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
0" fbF EDMONDS
CKEYSTONE*
OMPAC
Tri-plane
Keystone Coi
............. I
8"h x 18%
(200 x 450 >
*85 lbs e (3V kg)
KEYSTONE"
STANDARD
Straightface Tri-plane
Calculation of weight of
block per cubic foot
added by;
Donna L. Breske, P.E.
Phone: 425-334-9980
Date: 9-14-15
8" 90' Corner Unit*
.....................
8"h x 15"w x 6"d
(200 x 380 x 150 mm)
50 lbs 9 (25 kg)
Straightface
Standard Unit*
...............
8"wx 18"d
iO x 450 mm)
'1UU 110S 0 (39 kg)
Weight of Soil is 125
lb/CF
The weight of the
landscape block is less
than that of soil.
Keystone Standard & Compac units are made of high -strength, low absorption concrete for long lasting structures. All structural units
are interconnected using high strength fiberglass pins for strong shear connection. The connecting pins allow for ease of unit alignment
and a secure positive mechanical connection with soil reinforcement materials. Keystone's patented pin system is the critical difference
providing the safety and security of a structural retaining wall solution.
Standard & Compac Specifications
COMPRESSIVE STRENGTH: Minimum 3000 psi (21 MPa)
ABSORPTION: 8%
REFERENCE STANDARDS: ASTM C-1372
Fiberglass Pin Specifications
FLEXURAL STRENGTH: Minimum 128,000 psi (885 MPa) Keystone Fiberglass Pins
SHORT BEAM SHEAR STRENGTH: Minimum 6400 psi (44 MPa)
REFERENCE STANDARDS: ASTM D-4476, ASTM D-4475
*Note: Unit colors, dimensions, weight, and availability varies by manufacturer.
2 Keystone Compac & Standard www.keystoneivalls.com
DONNA L BRESKE PE, LLC
6621 Foster Slough Rd., Snohomish, WA 98290
Phone: 425-334-9980 e-mail: DonnaBreske@comcast.net
September 14, 2015
SEp 14 2015
City of Edmonds
Attn: Jennifer Lambert, Engineering Technician
13UILDING DEPAPTMENT
MTY OF EDMONDS
1215 1h Ave. N.
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Response to City Review Letter dated September 11, 2015 from Jennifer Lambert
Reference: Classico Homes — 530 7 th Ave. S. East Lot
Revised Civil drawings dated 9-14-15 have been prepared by this Engineer in response to review
comments received from the City. Below is response to tlie review comments received from the City of Edmonds
per the above subject letters. I
GENERAL:
1. Existing dry utilities and sewer & water installed as part of the plat have been "grayed -out."
EROSION CONTROL:
2. A note has been added that a silt fence will be insialled as needed per Edmonds Standard Detail ELI
WATER:
3. The pipe material for the INater'line from the meter to the house has been labeled as HDPE PEX.
SEWER:
4. Lamphole cover for the existing sanitary sewer clean -out at the property line has been noted on the plans
STORM:
5. The landing from the garage to the front door now has a leader line to it.
6. Flow arrows on the driveway pavements areas are now shown on the Strom Plan.
7. Sheet 4 has been added with the Landscape Block Section Detail "A -A" at a I" = 5' scale and distances
from bottom of landscape block wall to existing 6" pvc pipe are shown.
8. Attached is a cut sheet for Keystone Block Wall. The Compac Unit is 85 lb/cf. The weight of soil is 125
lb/cf. The weight of the block wall is less than soil, and thus it is standard engineering reasoning that the
existing 6" pvc pipe with the block wall crossings is capable of withstanding the load of the 4-foot high
landscaping block walls
Sincerely:
&WW X &WJJ
Donna L. Breske, P.E.
Phone: 425-334-9980
DonnaBreske@comcast.net
Classico Homes, East Lot, Th & Cedar Page 1
NW 114, SEC 25, TWP 27N, RNG 03E, W.M.
200,
200
EXISTING GROUND
L17
F---'j
Z7
SECTION "A -A"
190
190
PROPOSED HOUSE
PIL
P/
n
20' EASEMENT
EXISTING GRO
D
SECTION "A-11
EXISTING ROCKERY
DRIVEWAY TURN-ARObND
AREA
180
180
CY
IY SHARED ACCESS
DRIVE PAVING
27,
1.521%0lo
17J. 50
-7
TOP OF ACCESS
LID=161.0
171.00
-1 10
INSTALL RISERS
TO FINISH GRADE
AS REQUIRED
170
170
EXIS
-7
PIL
71 - T
NG 0-
GX ulVD
WEST
4 11VE-
EX. CBj 1
20 4 112))
VANED GRATE
.--.-,LOWER
DRIVEWAY
161.72) LOWER GARAGE TOP OF
SLAB
RIM= 174.09
160
IE= 169.92
160
EX. YB#,)
EXISTING STORM DRAIN
TOP=172.0 (LOWER
TOP TO 171.0)
DETENTION VAULT
0
IE= 169.17
150
150
EX. CBJ2
VANED GRATE
EX. YB#4
RIM= 158.9
TOP= 164.8
IE= 155.90
IE=161. 10
RAISE LID
TO GRADE AT TOP OF PLANTER AS REQUIRED
140
1-40
0+00
0+20
0+40 0+60
0+80
1+00
1+20
1+40 1+60
LANDSCAPE BLOCK WALL SECTION CUT ""A -A
SCALE l`--5'
APPROVED FOR CONSTRUCTION
CITY OF EDMONDS
DATE: !311(0 15
BY: wubj&
J*C'ITY �NGINEERING DIVIS18N
RESUB
SEP 14 2015
EAST HO UISE
llu
REVISMA DESCRIPTI17N DA TE
1 Sheet added with Revision 12 9-14-15
VWV A
.,XISTING 61" PVC PIPE ROUTING & COVER DETAIL
2
i
DONNA L BRESKE PE, Llic
FOR
CALL 3 WORKING DAYS BEFORE YOU DIG
1-800-424-5555
4
5
A
.6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RD.
CLASSICIO HOMES EAST HO USE 7TH & CEDAR
UTILITIES UNDERGROUND LOCATION CENTER
(ID,MT,ND,OR,WA)
ELECTRIC - RED SEWER -GREEN GAS101-YELLOW SURVEY -PINK
TFUCATV-0RANG5 PROPOSED.WHRE WATER -BLUE
UTILITY CONFLICT N07E.
THE CON7RACTOR SHALL BE RESPONSIBLE FOR VERIF)ING THE LOCATION, DIVENSION AND DEPTH OF ALL EXIS77NG U77LI71ES NIETHER
1�367,
uIST
SNOHOMISH, �98290
—
PHONE (425).334 9980
TAX ID: 27032400210100 PFN: BLD20150716
SAFETY PRECAUT1.11
C ONTRAC10R( )ATALL TRENCHING INACCORDANCE
WrrHSOURRENT OSHA STANDARDS
SHOW ON THESE PLANS OR NOT, BY POTHOLING TFIE U71LI77ES AND SURVE)ING THE HORIZONTAL AND VER77CAL LOCA77ONS PRIOR TO
CONS7RUC770N. THIS SHALL INCLUDE CALLING U71LITY LOCA7E AT 1-8004M-5555 AND TFIEN POTHOLING ALL OF 7HE EXIS77NG
ONAL
DMOPER. Classico Homes, Joe Schmaus
_F
U77L/77ES AT THEIR LOCA77ONS OF NEW U71LITY CROSSINGS TO PHYSICALLY IfERIFY METHER OR NOT CONFLICTS EWST LOCA77ON OF
SAID U71LI71ES AS SHOW ON THESE PLANS ARE BASED UPON IHE UNVERFIED PUBLIC INFORMA 77ON AND ARE SUBJECT TO VARIA TION.
SCAM. 1 5' ISSUE DA TE. 9-14-15 SHT NO. 4 OF
4
I
I
I
S E irv:>o 001
................ I I ....... ....... . .
5 acJ*50'52" E
H Ek
IRP-1
S 8C31F;'815111 E 6;6D 06D I
lIII I i"�=
m:11111d: IMIA
.......... I
� - Z
......... . 1 t r-4�'
...........
............
0
.............. 11-.1.1 ..........
5TACKED 5LOCK
RETAINING WALL, TYP. TOP
OF WALL 36'' MAX. A50VE
ORIGINAL GRADE. 5EE
CIVIL PLAN5.
..... . .... . ..... ....... . ..... In
z
LIN
. . ......... ..
0 EX. CE3
TOP EL.
i 10
PROJECT DATA
61TE ADDRE66:
Ith)AVE. 5
qE>30
" W�5
EDMONDS, WA 95020
OWNER:
C, 51CO ME5
,55E�2 202nd 5T. 6W
EDMOND5,, WA 90026
20&-912-092a
LOT AFREA TOTAL
1, 200 5F
ZONING
Re-&
MAX. 5LDG HGT
2E�' TO RIDGE
MAX. LOT C-OVER
35 PEfRCENT
PARGEL NO.
2'1032E�-002-034-00
LAND USE NOTES
HEIGHT CALCULATION
MAF,K
EU=vATION
A
150.0
1(00. el
100.0
151'0
A +5 +c: +D = ro-113, 5
& -19. 5 / 4 = l(o3. 5a
AVEIRAGE GfRADE = lro'3. aa
l6e. 00 + 25' = 194. aa
MAX. FIDGE = 1'34, aa
JE lAff RWOUS �'ARF-A..
T HWSE�. w 0''OECK
VO�WK CO
2644
EAW HOUSE*, vj,,WWRE0 VECK,
SF
W,
9F LOWRAWWWA
EASFUPM. :00MMY"
382.: 7
("'r MWKWALKWA Y
-t r yea 1 SE PA 90
L
Z* &V 7, W7
BUILDING LOT COVERAGE
NET 5UILDINGAIRREA
(0300 eF
15IJILDING-z AREA ALLOWED-
(o, 300 5F x . 35 = 2, 20E� 5F
RE61DENC;E -
13,30 5F
GARAGE
121 6F
COVEIRED DEGK
40 5F
GOVERED POFC;H
313 6F
TOTAL E31JILDING LOT C:OvEf;R,4GE= 2,113ro
5F (34.13%)
APK VED;BY INI N I I
Zone RS— �, Corner —Flag_
Setbacks
RegUired
Actual
Front
C>
Sides
Rear
Other
Be&it
01 1 MR,
'?,,iLD g0 (5--0 -7 1 (e
H A
HAGGE [DESIGN
ASSOCIATES
I " C; C3 R, R C3 FZA.-F E: ID
22G2G NE Incjlewood hill Rd.
5uite 3 12
5ammami5h, WA 95074
425-242-05 1 G
20G-948-29G2
HAGGf-DE51GN@M5N.COM
CERTIFIED PROFESSIMAL WILDING D5SIGAR
0 NATIONAL COUN
THOMAS N� HAW4
48,6$2 -
VIP- z
w
MEMBER A.I.B.D
AMERICAN INSTITUTE
OF BUILDING DESIGN
PROJECT:
5 3 0 7TH AVE. S
LOT I
DMO NDS, WA
CLASSIGO,
HOMES, INC.1
CLIENT:
f`7P
�-JhE,
I dE
a ow a
SHEET TITLE:
DATE
DESCRIPTION
8-215-15
PLAN REVI&ION5
5U5MIT To CITY
PLAN REV15ION5
C;OvEf;RAGE
TNH - PLANS TO CLIENT
4-213-15
TNH - C;D PLAN& TO ENG
4-23-15
TNH - EDD FLAN5
3-30-15
TNH - DD PLANS
3-16-15
TNH - DID FLAN5
THESE DRAWINGS ARE COPYRIGHTED AND MAY NOT BE
COPIED, REPRODUCED OR REDRAWN WITHOUT WRITTEN
PERMISSION FROM HAGGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC. USE
OF THESE DRAWINGS IS LIMITED TO A SPECIFIC PROJECT
FOR THE PERSONS NAMED HEREON AND FOR
CONSTRUCTION OF ONE BUILDING. ANY OTHER USE OR
REUSE IS STRICTLY PROHIBITED WITHOUT WRITTEN
CONSENT FROM HAGGE DESIGN ASSOCIATES, INC.
OCIRYR113HT
HAr.r3E DESIGN AsSOCIATES, INC
DATE:
6-1-15
RROJ:
15011
SHEET
A 1
RESUB
AUG 2 7 2015
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
MW OF EDMONDS