540 HOLLY DR.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii
11724
540 HOLLY DR
.-r � I I
7
W
7� 7
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
CITY 00IFF EDMONne
WATER-SEVi= DEPARTARE"
...................... . .......................... . ........... .......... . ..................................................... .................. . .............. . ...... . .......................... . .................... ..... .... w ..................
... ONITIM "D/OR BUjWFX.....DA,LE ... CRAVEN
wis iqmm & Amams .... 5.0 ... U1.11P ... Uckho .. . ...........................................
.......... .... ................
persal"Im Is grazi . ... . ...... . ... ............ 1979, for repair &DV!1W_ 0041*60tion of a sid e Sewer to the city oWtary.sewer
qstm, In neowdowe with City of Umox4s ordWanom
tNTWNIOCAY,TdG TOTIM"Ia4wwo,:�_
No. I —The OWUM Of the property, may o " aj�permlt to construct sewer Inside property Uns. A licensed Side Sewer Contractor must be employed to const-
side sewer in street area, to hot cover any portion of sewer before It has beft Inspected.
NVrE Wo6 2—All work performed in c4ir right-of-way requIrm an Invasion, of litight-ot-WAY PermIt obtainable f rom the City Engineer's
NOTS'No. 3--Obtaintoll, Wormation regarding OrdUumWe -21.16.630 and Regulations governing side sewers when you
NOTS Ito. 4—Top,,Qt 0" sewer must have at least 36 Inches coverage at property line and 12 inches Inside,1r,"Orty,
Ahan % will be permitted.
abir
No" in street must be water settled and surface of street restored to finlo";9er
ch may develop within one year Of
X.1" , �AR A? I
g, -
'=rwful to alter or do. any work on the maJA "war or It# appurtenances except to in-
MOTO its,
Ive into the 010—
Date.
. .......................
........ By ...... j iligoe Y -----
.. ... ... . ..........................
-if ri ri Af zw Aln9
Tnxizeinn t F nh+—"
ad BY�Owner of Firm, Performing Coustrtwt
BY...............
4
ation constmeted under Ults permit
77- -_%,7�77;77
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 2-7Q3ZtCQ2McM)
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE): 2002MM
COVENANTS (RECORDED)
CRITICAL AREAS:— 01 1 [Ap DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver E] Study Required B'Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT
DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: ,5 - tp - o2—
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
I w 91 NO I 111,41911 We 1:1 Rabil A
11-0 q MOT "m 4 1 M
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: 01- Dq,-(D2-
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED:— 15 - Lo - 02—
SEWER LID FEE $:
LID #:
SHORT PLAT FILE: LOT: BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:— Ct-g-r12—
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
GEOTECH REPORT DATED: 5 21 - (p I
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT
FOR:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
.. ts.
LATEMPOSTsTorms\Strect File Checklist.doc
0
ZONE
SEf BACI&-
FR
SIDE
REAR
OTHER -
HEIGHT
I
- - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - -
0
ASPHALT
DRIVEWAY
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - j
L- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - I - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
------------ ------ ------ .........................
m —w - �o -0
<Z)
&2;r-LAN
P.Wr4" AM mmm FM LO Omfo
42!
SYS!RA( CROSS Szcrlo�
RONO" SPA"mit "tgmz
LOT, I—
"'MRm
6171 ADPftn& W �T
—T'L AW
4ma.
oTmEET FILE
w mu
M—'- —A -T--l.
-16 —k
101--v
(a'
MAY I
RECEIVED
MAY - 6 2002
BUILDING DEPT.
0
0
NAME: 1056
SITE MRI
PROJECT D
PLANNING DATA
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDE . Yes o
MAP PAGE: 155 CORNER LOT: aYes24N�o Njo
,),) FLAG LOTZ!§L
ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION #: i!:�9 6F
Study Required:
��WWai�ver
El Conditional Walver
CH
SEPA DETERMINATION:
Ll Fee
Q Checklist
L) APO list w/ notarized form
,a- (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft. of Puget Sound or Lakel Ballinger)
Ll Exempt
SETBACKS: All'
Required Setbacks:
Street: Left Side: Right Side:_ Rear:
. Actual Setbacks- -7 Re
Street: LeftSide: Right Side:_ �2- ar:
Street mapphecked for additional setback required? (Yes / No DN
Ll DETACHED
El RO::rlE
Ll FE S/TR
Y WINDOWS I PROJECTING MODULATION:
ffSTAIRS I DECKS:
PARKING: Requirpd
LOT AREA:
LOT COVERAGL7.
Calculations: I I -ril-
BUILDING HEIGHT:
Datum Point:
Maximum AJIC
A.D.U. CREATED14N
Actual:-2f�-
k%A J bn 4-fpm)� -+- qwc—'
= 2--7 <3 &
Datum Elevation: 00. -1-1 S7
ved: ���Actual Height:
SUBDIVISION:
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: ffs��
OTHER:
CAFiIeNo:
4pritical Areas Checklist*
Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/ vegetation)
1. Site Address/ Location: 5-410 1116
2. Property Tax Account Number. -7-
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
4. Is this site currently developed? A yes; _ no
If yes; how is site developed?- 5MIe4ibE
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
V Flat: less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site. 11/0
N Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 1G-feet over a horizontal
distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise of 10-feet
over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
horizontal
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):.
0
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx. Df;Mr_5jV1M
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Q Approx. Depth: MV_T_rM
What season(s) of the year? BUILDING DEPT.
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of a water course.
9. Site contains a creek or an area where water flows across the grounds surface? Flows are year-round?
Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
bs CLrr%�d
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shru --- ;P,�.JL j[
urban landscaped (lawn,shrubs etc)' - �< UUPY
11. Obvious wetland- is present on site: /Vo
Tu
tysfad se,
X
N bQY,
Plan Chb& I uni
2. Site is�
`Scsmapped�bl -typ
1
4.' - Criu C`141,,Ail� MUM.
`C Map lrkificat�S.C. ea -on site?.
Site eWth' h iii M
6.' Site de�i th�,--BA -runept Y;, hS.1 P
REQU N
EDA
EF
X`Y
Re'
W/
G:\Sha.re\Library\Planning\Fomis\Public Handouts\ Critical Areas Checklist Doc/1-16-2001
E
City OfIdmonds
�g Q
C) p Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
DATED RECLWED: - �'- I
CITYRECEIPT#: 1&9S-2—
Critical Areas File#:
Critical Areas Checklist Fee: - $45.00
DATE MAILED TO AP.P LI CANT: -2113,1.?001
.CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is
to be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of a development permit to the City.
The purpose of the Checklist is to enable City. staff to
determine whether any potential Critical Areas are, or
may be, present on the subject property. The
information needed to complete the Checklist should
be easily a*vailable from observations of the site or data
available at City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps,
or soil surveys).
An applicant, or his/or representative, must fill out the
checklist, sign and date it, and submit it to the City.
The City will review the checklist, make a precursory
site visit, and make a determination of the subsequent
steps necessary to complete a development permit
application.
Please submit a vicinity map, along with the signed
copy of this form to assist City staff in finding and
locating the specific piece of property described on this
form. In addition, the applicdnt shall include other
pertinent information (e.g. site plan, topography map,
etc.) or studies in conjunction with this Checklist to
assistant staff in completing their preliminary
assessment of the site.
I have completed the attached CRITICAL AREAS CHECKLIST and attest that the answers provided are
factual to the best of my knowledge (fill out the appropriate column below).
PLEASE PRINT CLEARLY
K ��r Applicant: Applicant Representative:
n e
A-16
A-AjO &�W,0,4 CI�AOMq 6V,#&g C. WHMG,
Name Name
Street Address
city State Zip
Telephone:
Signature Date: 0 4z S' 7z'g
'32�4 MhW
Street Address
2,6
City State Zip
Telephone:
Signature do� Date: 0/ e/0
G:\Sha.re\Library\Planning\Fonns\Public Handouts\ Critical Areas Checklist Doc/1-16-2001
Dennis M. Bruce,
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
N
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
324 Main St.
Edmonds, WA 98020
May 15, 2001
0
P.E.
Subject: Geotechnical And Drainage Evaluation
Proposed Chapman Residence at 540 Holly Dr.
Edmonds, Washington
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
MAY 2 9
2fini
,81J1tD11VG DEP),
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical and drainage
evaluation of the Chapman property at 540 Holly Dr., Edmonds, Washington. This
evaluation was required due to owner and architect concerns, as well as City of
Edmonds requirements.
REFERENCES:
• Location map
• Proposed Chapman residence plans by Waite Architects
• Site photographs
BACKGROUND,:
The overall Chapman property consists of approximately 12,800 square feet and
is rectangular in shape serviced by a private drive off Holly Dr. (see site plan). The
property contains an existing two story wood frame residence. This existing home is to
be demolished and a new residence built in the general same footprint area (see
architect's plans). The overall property is gently sloping with moderate slopes in the
southeast corner (adjacent neighboring fence).
Visual evaluation of the existing residence and property revealed no evidence of
any geotechnical distress: no foundation cracking, no settlements, no slides, no
sloughing, no soil creep, nor any evidence of erosional degradation.
Currently, the existing residence and impervious area results in 6,127 square feet
of total impervious surface.
The new Chapman residence and improvements will result in a total impervious
surface area of 6, 134 square feet. No net impervious surface change.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
1:
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 2
Currently, the existing residence utilizes downspouts and splash blocks for
drainage contrQL Additional.1y, some type of drainage discharge pipe was encountered
in the south=kcorner of the -property. There appears to be an historic "sump" area
that receives drainage discharge. Based on the relatively clean, sandy soils present, it
appears that.this- discharge water infiltrates in -the- southee* corner.
VJ%1r
EVALUATION: MOM.
In order to augment -the-existing.site-geotechnical- information, 4soil-test- pits
were hand dug by this engineer on April 24, 2001. These 4 test pits were dug in the
lawn area of the -existing property and -adjacent the -proposed new residence -foundation.
The findings of all 4 test pits revealed similar subgrade conditions, namely:
0" to 6' Organics, -roots, -and organic -silt
6" to approx. 16" Moderate to moderately dense relatively clean,
tan -sand
16" to 40" (bottom of pit) Increasingly dense sand. Very little silt content
estimate- less -than 6% fine
No water was encountered in any of the four test pits. All test pit walls remained
vertical and stable. No sloughing -or caving- occurred.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the Chapman property at 540 Holly Dr. is geotechnically approved for the
proposed new single family residence, subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
P.C.f.
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
F I ROM, : D. I Bruce, P.E. Engine
Mr, Richard Chapman
c/o Walte Architects
May 15,2001
Page 3
PHONE NO. : 206 546 844* Jul. 16 2001 05:50PM P2
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled Ganeral Earthwork and Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individqal
spread footings should have ' minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-four (24)
inches, respectively, and shoutct be bottomed at, least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width, For
G. L. C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of
a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-Orm wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, It is
anticipated that total post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by friction between
t�e foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
Parameter Desian Value
I
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) P.C.f. is pounds per cubic Foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the
7SJPQC7V. E-;*MCVPt
?ASS%VG ?Vessop-It
Awe-
U )k
31s- r 10. cht4cs.
ks, KOX
-ropN 3saPj
ago-r9eOMiCALLY
;luiva en luid density. Arpto\35h,
We recommend that a safety factor of at least 1.5 be used for design ofthe
foundation's resistance to lateral loading. 'Ir— (6 - 0
FROM D.Bruce, P.E. En 9 1 nele PHONE NO. : 206 546 84410 Jul. 16 2001 05:51PM P3
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 4
SLABS-ON-GRALDE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can be recompacted prior to, placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING, WALO:
Retaining walls backfilled on one. side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The following
recommended design parameters are for walls less then �Kvehre- �.feet in height w[lich
restrain level backfill: 06'� e -
Paramet �MA�' - I
Design Value &
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
3�O *cf,
Coefficient of Friction 0.55 No-rEr S-irkoe-r. gWe-k
c
Sall Unit Weight f ob 11,0 wwet4
1 c.f. _" \CA L LY
110
10
Where, C!! AeeVPTAI�LE AN4 AMLavek
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot E
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivale_ntfiu-ja-�
densities.
For restrained walls which. cannot defect at least 0. 002 times the wal I
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining waUs only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding,
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions. eodst, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is. desired behind the walls, then we will need
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 5
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment -should- not- be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting.from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not
exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). fill slopes should not exceed 1;1 (H:V). It is important to note
that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made
aware of this potential hazard.
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 stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 6
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system.
No groundwater was observed in any of the four test holes during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the 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. Any exposed
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to. the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
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 which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In no case should the
11
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 7
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
95% for upper 12 inches of
Subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to ' excessive softening and
"pumping" from construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material.may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 8
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
As discussed, currently the existing- residence at 540 Holly Dr. utilizes splash
blocks for drainage control. Additionally, some type of drainage pipe was observed in
the southeast corner of the property.
This engineer recommends a new storm water drainage system be installed
consisting of gutters, tightline downspouts, and tightline pipe into an infiltration trench.
The infiltration trench shall be built in accordance with the attached drainage design and
located in the south central part of the property (see drainage plan).
This engineer recommends abandoning, the existing- southeast corner "sump"
system.
On site inspections by this engineer required during, drainage system installation.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls,. slabs, any retaining- walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only- valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Soil cuts
• Foundation subgrade verification
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
SUMMARY:
The proposed new Chapman residence at 540 Holly Dr., Edmonds, Washington
is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations
herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key
geotechnical inspection during construction.
Mr. Richard Chapman
c/o Waite Architects
May 15, 2001
Page 9
STATEMENT OF MINIMAL RISK:
The plans and specifications for the new Chapman residence at 540 Holly Dr., as
prepared by Waite Architects have been reviewed by this engineer and conform to the
recommendations of the analysis and report and, provided that those conditions and
recommendations are satisfied during the construction and use, and inspected and
verified by this engineer, the area disturbed by construction will be stabilized and remain
stable and will not increase the potential for soil movement, and the risk of damage to
the proposed development and from the development to adjacent properties from soil
instability will be minimal.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied,. is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
The City of Edmonds
APPLICATION
for
SEDE SEWER PERN[IT
NEW CONSTRUCTION REPAIRS 0 X), EASEMENT No . ............ ( .............................
OW"NER ... Pale Craven CONTRACTOR ... ..................... RMIT No . .. .......... . .......
......................... .............................................................................. .......... ........................................... PE
540 Holly Drive - Edmonds, Wash.
ADDRESS............................. ........................................................ .................. LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT No . .............................................. BIJDCK No . ............................................
NAME OF ADDITION .....................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------
kl",PA" A ,
Auj tj
ui
__j
LL.
ui
cn
Approved:
DATE..... . ................. By �� .. ......... ....................
sec NW 1/4,
NW 1/4; th E
440 ft. to
15 ft.; th
S 103 ft.; th
E 95 ft. M
th W 110 ft.;
th N 206 ft. to TPB.
%��,Commonli known a s: 540 Holly Drive
r. r. CalculatioT
a
z. r.
x
Later
x "'#'10 0
unkt
x
AK
Connection.ctiarge of
in view of
no ecord c
41 aspesamen t
T-
J�
4i LRL.irf
Attacment
crv)
POP
B;.th cont alg same line
to E line sd tr; th S 103 ft.�;
Owner: Dale Craven
300.00
onnec ion ree'
C t '
Lateral Char ge
25 40
Trunk Char e
Permit
335.00
Total.
I p
4:
0
CEIVEQ
�u G 8 1-972.
zt:
bate: �97 2
Memo to Director of Maintenance Operation Niblic Works 2 C E-:", L L)
rrom: City Engineer 1972
AIJ G
Subject: Sewer Connection Charges
Legal Description: Section 25, Township 27, Range 3; th Ptn NW.1/4, NW 1/4,
described as follows: Beginning at a point 124 ft. S of NWIcor
sec NW 1/4, NW 1/4; th E 440 ft. to TPB; th cont alg same line
15 ft.; th S 103 ft.; th E 95 ft. M/L to E line sd tr; th S 103 ft.;
th W 110 ft.; th N 206 ft. to TPB.
Commonly known as: 540 Holly Drive owner: Dale Craven
Z.F.F. Calculation:
300.00 Connectiqn ree
z.r.r. x (minimum)
Lateral x (".)'100 Lateral Charge
Unit x (ly 25 25.00 Trunk Charge
—lo.00- Permit
335.00 Total
**Connection charge of $300 in View of no record of
assessment.
cc:
LRL: rf
Attachment
Date: _Iua_ll.,_, 1972
Memo to Director of MaiLten-ance & Operation Public Works C
From: City Engineer -- '1972
Subject: Sewer Connection Charges AUG I I
Legal. Description: Section 25, Township 27, Range 3; th Ptn NW 1/4, NW 1/4,
described as follows: Beginning at a point 124 ft. S of NW cor
sec N ' W 1/4, NW 1/4; th E 440 ft. to TPB; th cont alg same line
15 ft.; th S 103 ft.; th E 95 ft. M/L to E line sd tr; th S 103 ft.;
th W 110 ft.; th N 206 ft. to TPB.
Commonly known as: 540 Holly Drive
Z.F.1'. Calculation:
.ee JIPI
Owner: Dale Craven
k -#.For Z.F.r. x ( Q - Jo- A V.7
!'d'
300.00
Connect' Fee
(minimum
Lateral x 0100
Lateral Charge
unilt x ($ 25
:25.00
Trunk Charge
10.00
Permit
335.00
Total
**Connection charge of $300 in view of no record of
assessment.
cC:
LRL: rf
Attachment