547 DAYTON ST.PDF11111111111111
14186
547 DAYTON ST
Zone 6 ComerFl
TItE- CENTER- a&-
5-47 DAYTON ST. Setbacks Required Actual
DR— CIR-ECICIJANTZ Ffont 5 0 0
Sidesc-M AO
TReLLIS PLAN Rear,4/
Other
EDMONDS LANDSCAPINcAelight __j_z
IERMONTRACTOR IS RESPOelBlf ILLANE F-L,(U
APP D BY ENGINEERING `�"ev`Lov`
EROSION U*'ONTROL AND DRAINAGE aec(nr
I I - I I TreLUS.
547
DAYTON
SITE PLAN frontage improVemel
lu't'jilritie'-s—or
l,ght_ot_way pej, C,,,tl standards
i — --itre- f4urina the permitted
f5 r1j - 711 /
1�)o toOl St.
107
9,mage to
'e
in UtY
it is cauzed
Is
APPROVED MY PLANNING
L,2 Lts
�V�,to
vert�C.CIL
Lp Kt of
EL�'De of
TRELLIS DETAIL
REMO VE-10-
5�7 DAY-0� ST.
00434212002400
AUG — 3 2011
Li
DEVELOPMENT SERMCES
---- ---
----
---
CITY OF EDMONDS
zi
u
-- -- --------------------
u u u u u u u u u u u
overkda� CedarTrt'2 1—trkead C-dal T111US
5�h
DR li'm St
c4lu,�
PLANTI"r, STIZIP
Ak!aol.'
bArrO� -ST.
SITC- PLAN DC -TAILS STREET
FILE
0.
-C. 116-7-
op lIP20
City _ Edmonds
Development Services Department
Planning Division
Phone: 425.771.0220
Fax: 425.771.0221
The Critical Areas Checklist contained on this form is to
be filled out by any person preparing a Development
Permit Application for the City of Edmonds prior to
his/her submittal of the application to the City.
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
available from observations of the site or data available at
City Hall (Critical areas inventories, maps, 'or soil
surveys).
Date Received: 141V� `6
City Receipt#:_ �rl '
Critical Areas File #: , -
Critical Areas Checkli�i �i6: $135.00
Date Mailed to Applicant:
A property owner, or his/her authorized representative,
must fill out the checklist, sign and date it, and submit it
to the City. ne 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 applicant 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.
The undersigned applicant, and his/her/its heirs, and assigns, in consideration on the processing of the application agrees
to release, inderrmify, defend and* hold the City of Edmonds harmless from any and all damages, including reasonable
attorney's fees, arising from any action or infraction based in whole or part upon false, misleadmig, maccurate or
incomplete information furnished by the applicant, his/her/its agents or employees.
B y my signature, I certif� that the information and exhibits herewith submitted are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and that I am authorized to file this application on the behalf of the owner as listed below.
SIGNATUREQF APPLicANT/AGENT
DATE
Property Owner's Authorization
By my signature, I certify that I have authorized the above Applicant/Agent to apply for the subject land use application,
and grant my permission for the public offlicials anAtlie staff of the City of Edmonds to enter the subject property for the
purposes of inspection and pos#ng attendant tpAhira)qplication. _
SIGNATURE OF OWNER
Owner/AppUcant:
Name
P-Ky--m. 17:
Street Address
city Staie Zip
Telephone:
DATE
Applicant Representative:
WA-9457M
Name - -
&�T 7,7?) 4E7
7-
Street Address
0A,
City State Zip
Telephone: 4r= r:Z
Email address (optional): - Email Address (optional):
0
E
Critical Areas Checklist
Site Information (soils/ topography/ hydrology/vegetation)
1.. Site Address/ Location:
2. Property Tax Account N
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet): 4��01(501 fv—�
.1 ,
4. . Is this site currently developed? A yes; — no.
If yes; how is site developed? (-5rinice -�3t,90-
5. Describe the general site topography. Check all that apply.
- ?< Flat: less than 5-feet elevation'change over entire site.
CA File No:CaAWtD'k-�
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-fee I t 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).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over A horizontal
distance of less than 33-feet).
Other (please describe):
0
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: N/0 Approx. Depth:
7. Site contairL§ areas of seasonal standing water: — WA ; Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
8. Site is in the floodway floodplain of aw.ater 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?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow ;shrubs mixed
urban landscaped (lawn, shrubs etc)
1 1. Obvious wetland is present on site: ad
For City Staff Use Only
1. Plan Check Number, if applicable?
2. Site is Zoned?
3. SCS mapped s
4. Critical Areas inventory or C.A. map indicates Critical Area on site? IVA
5. Site within designated earth subsidence landslide hazard area? - tl'j
DETERMINATION
STUDY REQUIRED WAIVER
Reviewed bv:
CITY OF EDMONDS
1h
121 5 Avenue North, Edmonds WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 - Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICEs DEPARTMENT: Planning Division
MEMORANDUM
TO: Street File
FROM: Gina Coccia, Associate Planner
DATE: November 17, 2008
SUBJECT: Staff Administrative Design Review for BLD-2008-0287
As part of the City's review of the above permit, design review was required under ECDC 20. 10.
Because the addition did not exceed the threshold requiring review by the Architectural Design
Board (ADB), staff completed the review with the building permit application under file number
ADB-2008-0044.
The project involves a second floor office addition to an existing office building at 547 Dayton
Street in the BD-2 zone (Downtown Mixed Commercial Comprehensive Plan Designation). A
pre -application meeting was held on 04.19.06. There are no critical areas on or adjacent to the
property (CRA-2008-0036). Review under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) is not
required for this project. The project proposes to meet all required development standards
(setbacks, height, parking, etc.). There are no required setbacks, and there is no room for any
additional landscaping (see photos of the exterior of the site, attached).
With respect to the design criteria in the Comprehensive Plan and in ECDC 16.43.030, the
proposal is APPROVED with conditions:
1. All existing landscaping around the perimeter of the site is to remain.
2. The new addition shall be painted to match the existing exterior.
3. Any future changes to the site or to the exterior of the building shall be reviewed by the
Planning Division for compliance with ECDC 20. 10 and ECDC 16.43.
Page I of I
9V
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .......
�! 711,
nc
Fra,
Ems
IF
-777777=7-
fSJ
..Woo
OA
IVY
4
i
IN
IA�
JW,
NIP,, -r-w-10
,Tl - j 11-11111 - - - '. A "
F? , TY
0
T7
'Vsa,
1 4 4
Insom
2 1
4
�m
STREEI: FILE-
MAI
P.2 9 1995.
ED
m 77-
r
w di
10
peg
Lo
f e�'. o
0 u
?K
V?
Lij
U440
G
0 0
rl..s *.,qq;eS
4c, f3NKW.
.74m G�'Wl L—O"-Kl.l
-I-
C:T *ILE NO.
STR FILL* Critical Areas Checldis-L
Site hiforniation . (soils/tol)ograpliy/liydrology/vege.tation) RECF-1VEE)
I.- Site Addres s/Location: 15115's. 0"I FEB A 7 1995
4-jN4--Z -
2. Property Tax Account Number: pERMIT COUNTER
- Mt> - C6LIV OC'Cn
3. Approximate Site Size (acres or square feet):
4. Is this site currently developed? _.�Lyes; no.
_5
If yes; how is site developed?-Q '4L—f -
5. Describe the general site topography. Check al that apply.
Flat:' less than 5-feet elevation change over entire site.
Rolling: slopes on site generally less than 15% (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of 66-feet).
Hilly: slopes present on site of more than 15% and less than 30% ( a vertical rise
of 10-feet over a horizontal distance of 33 to 66-feet).
Steep: grades of greater than 30% present on site (a vertical rise of 10-feet over a
horizontal distance of less than 33-fei-,t).
Other (please describe):
6. Site contains areas of year-round standing water: Approx- Depth:
7. Site contains areas of seasonal standing water: Approx. Depth:
What season(s) of the year?
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? N—A— Flows are seasonal? (What time of year?
10. Site is primarily: forested meadow shrubs mixed
urban lands.qaped (lawn,shrubs etc) X,
11. Obvious wetland is present on site:
Foe Cjty:sj�ff Use Only
Sit6li*Z6nea!
44
--S a-firnapped 07r
At
y or. ihap:indicates; Wedand present on-site,.�:
:C.A
CijiicA -Mei5 inventorY Or C.A. map: indicatesCritica.1 Area dP:siie?-
--&s!t;iat6d 'earth sub sidencelandslide7haza rd-.area?.:.
s-
ed- th eiltall iti e. Ma
bn e- vironrri y, ens V
-15&ERkTNATfO
NALMAIVEF
IM I ED .... ... ...
.--REQ ......... r:
.:PR
A 4�
lewed by:*,
Z,
--b
nnerl
a�:
RICV OW2".%
RECEIVED
FEB 171995
PERMrr COUNTEFt
W/R Associates
2313 N. 172nd Street
Seattle, Washington 98133
365-9435
January 1992
(Revised to 25 Year Design Storm -- February 1992)
STORM DRAINAGE ANALYSIS FOR DEVELOPMENT OF 0.37
ACRE SITE AT NW QUADRANT OF DAYTON STREET AND 6TH
AVE SOUTH IN EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
\.N
viA 4
.0
S TP,
EET RL
10 0-V
Op,
P-Introduction:
The site is located in Edmonds, Washington at the NW quadrant of
the intersection of Dayton Street and 6th Avenue South. The area
to be developed contains 16,485 SF or 0.37 acres., It contains a
single family residence in the, grass/gravel parking, and grass
lawn.
-.Existing Site Conditions:
Figure No. 1 shows the ground cover on the existing site. it
also show the drainage Path used to calculate the time of concen-
tration. The storm drainage detention calculations are based on
the Y & W method from the Snohomish County Drainage Manual for a
25 Year design storm and a 10 Year release rate.
Existing Flow Conditions
The site slopes from elevation 100.23 along the NE development
limits to elevation 92.65 at the SW Property corner.
Existing Ground Cover Area, Ac C
Lightly graveled Parking w/ some grass 0.087 0.50
Grass Lawn (Slope less than 5%) 0.140 0.20
Grass Lawn (Slope greater than 5%) 0.060 0.25
Pavement & Roofs 0.080 0.90
Landscaping 0.003 0.20
0.370
(.087)(.5)+(.14)(.2)+(.06)(.25)+C.08)(.9)+(.003)(-2)
Ex"': ---------------------------------------------------- = 0.43
0.37
The existing time of concentration was determined from the exist-
ing drainage Path indicated on Figure No. 1. This path has four
separate flow sections as shown on figure No. 1.
Section
1: Slope = (100-23-96-4)/80' = 4.8%
T: 80' (Flow Lengtbl 0.59 minutes (lightly,graveled
(2.25 fps)(60 s.per min) Parking w/some grass)
2: Slope = (96.4-95.9)/32' = 1.6%
2
T 32' (Flow Length) 0.59 minutes (Grass Lawn)
(0.9 fps)(60 s per min)
3: Slope.J= (95.9-95..3)/26Y = 2.3%
T 26' (Flow Length) 0.14 minutes (Pavement)
(3.1 fps)(60 s per min)
4: Slope = (95.3-92.65)/49' = 5.4%
T 49' (Flow Length) 0.51 minutes (Grass Lawn)
(1.6 fps)(60 s per min)
Time of Cone. (TO = 10' (Initial Wetting) + 0.59' + 0.59'.+
0.14' + 0.51' = 11.83 min
For TC = 11.83', i (10 year) = 1.7 inches per hour, A=O..37
0(loyr-ex) = Qallow = C i A = (0.4-3)(1.7)(0.37) = 0.27 CFS
Required Storm Detention Volume:
From the architect's site plan we computed the ratios of the
different types of proposed ground cover (92.1% Pavements/Roofs &
7.9% Landscape) on the lots to be developed (Lots 21, 22, 23).
We assumed that the future development area to the west (Lots 24,
25) will have the same ratio of ground cover when developed. We
extrapolated the preceeding data to find the following areas;
Proposed Ground
Cover
Area, Ac
C
Pavement & Roofs
(92.1%)
0.341
0.90
Landscaping
( 7.9%)
0.029
0.20
(0.341)(0.90) + (0.029)(0.20)
= 0.845
0.37
Using Y & W for the Snohomish County 25 year storm we calculated
as follows:
Gallow 0.27
00 ---------- --------------
Acres*Cfu (0.37)(0.845)
T -25 + (2706/0 0 )112 = 30.98 .
Vs = (4-329)(T) - 40(0 )(T) = 1,325.6
0
T + 25
0.864 CFS/Acre
Vt = (Vs).(cfu)(tes)=(1325.6)(0.845)(O.,37)= 414.4 C.F.*(min)
Storage Volume Provided:
PQ N Z X Z, -4 785
Vol.
in 48" dia. CB#1 =
(3.0)(4.0)(4.0)(.785)
38
C.F.
Vol.
in 48" dia. MH#2 =
(3.2)(4.0)(4.0)(.785)
40
C.F.
Vol.
in 34 LF of 42'*dia-
pipe=(34)(3.5)(3.5)(.785)=
327
C.F.
Vol.
in 4 LF of 24"dia
:3Lubs=(4-)(2.0)(2.0)(.,785)
12
C.F. 12-
----------
4.17
C.F.
417 C.F.
is greater than the
414 C.F. minimum required.
Orifice Size
Dia.
= 6.07(Qallow)1/2 =
6.07(0.27)1/2 2-3/8"
--------------
h(1/4)
-----------
(3.19)1/4
4
3
7
CITY OF EDMONDS
8 9 19 q
Address of Construction:
Property Legal Description (Include all easements):
Owner an i d/or Contractor'
State License No.
0 Single Family
�0 M Iff-Family (No. of Units-)
/CM0,mmeribidl
r C_x pn�oes ?o ooqy,5
I
SIDE SEWER PERMIT
PERMIT 8117 2 7
-0 C2
Building Permit NoA
�,,S
Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No 11 Yes
RW Construction Permit No.
Cross other Private Property: No El Yes
41
Attach legal description and copy of recorded easement
I certify that I have read and shall comply with all city requirements
as indicated on the back of the Permit Card.
Za
Date
* CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * ,:
OFFICE LISE�ONLT
FOR INSPECTION CALL 771-SM, PUBLIC WORKS DEPT.
Permit Fee: -30 Issued By
Trunk Charge, Date Issued: C)
Assessment Fee: Receipt No.: 0,5 V
Lid No.:
Partial Inspection:
Comments
Date -Initial
Reason Rejected: Date -Initial
Final Inspection Approved: Date14__-3L_J_S__Initia�__4"
PERMIT MUST BE POSTED, ON JOB SITE
White Copy: File Green Copy: Inspector Buff Copy: Applicant
Revised 3/90
The City of Edmonds
OWNER ..............
JOB ADDRESS ............. . ...
Side Sewer Drawing
NEW CONITRUCTION ;4"'� REPAIRS [-]
EASEMENT NO . ...........................................
LID NO - ------------------ - ASMT.
CONTRACTOR.................................................................................... PERMIT NO.
DESCRIPTION: LOT NO . ...................................... BLOCK NO . ......................... ..........
................................................................. I .............................................................................................
NAME OF ADDITION
C -T Fr4"c. 41 I -ID To surFace-
3
0
eo.
&P .
C - A Lf 4 c- f
Approved:
PWW-0001-1 1/75 (REVA 1/78) DATE I ...... . q
................... By Z:��
-----------
.....................................
The Citv of Edmonds
Side Sewer Drawing
EASEMENT NO - ------- ---------------------------------
102-08690 NEW CONSTRUCTION E] REPAIRS LID NO - ------------------ - ASAfff. NO - ------------------
OWNER---- PIEEBE ... WYRO ------------------------------------------------------------ CONTRACTOR --------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------- PERMIT NO - ------------
joB ADDRESS ...... 5.47 --- DAYT-ON ... STRE.ET -------------------------------- LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO - --------------------------- .......... BLOCK NO . .............. ------------------
............ ..... ----------- -----
............................................................................. I ----------------------------------------------- ....................................
NAME OF ADDITION
rn
0
DYE TESTED ON SEVIER
Approved:
PWW-Ml-1 1/75 (REV. 11/78) DATE ............................................ BY ------------------------------------------------------------
PLANNING DATA
New Commercial I Multi -Family Projects
F =[LE I
Name:
Date:
Site Address: z4 -1
Plan Check #: BLD (ok 9
Project Description:
Use(s) Proposed. 6f�;
Allowed Use: <��) I NO)
CUP File Number:
To Allow What Uses:
Legal Nonconforming Land Use Determination Issued: (YES 1(9
Reduced Site Plan Provided: (YES i NO)
Zoning:
Map Page:
Comp Plan Designation:
Corner Lot: (YES <N3O
Flag Lot: (YES
ADI3 File Number (date waived):
Lot Area: �_,, (..,0C> 151
Plans Mat8h AD13 Approved: (YES NO)
Shoreline Required: (YES
Critical Areas Determination#:
Study Required
Waiver
SEPA Determination:
Exempt
Needed (for sites with 500 cubic yards of grading or within 200 feet of Puget Sound or Lake
Ballinger. Requires: (1) Fee, (2) Environmental Checklist, and (3) APO List with notarized form).
Required Setbacks
Street: Q
Side:
- 0
1 Rear: 0
Actual Setbacks
Street:
Side:
Side:
Rear:
Lot Coverage/FAR Required:
Lot Coverage/FAR Provided:
Lot Coverage/FAII Calculations:
Building Height
Datum Point:
Datum Elevation:
Maximum Height: '�o
Actual Height. -
Subdivision:
Lot Aggregation Required: tJ
Landscaping Q//A
Landscaping Matches AD13 Approved:
Landscaping Bid Provided: (YES / NO).
Bond Amount (100% Bid):
Plan Review By:
PLANNING DATA
New Commercial / Multi -Family Projects
-J
Commercial Parking Analysis t A
Business Name
Type/Use
Parking
Ratio
Tenant
Area
Required
Parking
Total Parking Required -
Total Parking Pro vided.-
Vu ParkingAnal is t�
# Bedrooms per Dwelling Unit
Parking Ratio
# Units
Required
Parking
Studio
1.2/D.U.
1 Bedroom
1.5/D.U.
2 Bedrooms
1.8/D.U.
3 + Bedrooms
2.0/D-U.
Total Parking Require
Total Parking Provided.
Other
'FA
Plan Review By:
Appticant shall! repair/reoaca all damelp to INQ 7-66 1 CA C11
Utilities or frontage knprovements h My ENGINEERING 04VISION RESUB
rigt"f-way per City standards fti Is caused A��D AS NOTE
or occurs during the pamiXted project P�N %� � 1 1:
11 1 6%mv-REET i 0 'Idlb
Date: FILE S
UVfl:KT- ANU DRAINAGE 10LUMt DEPARMEN!
11TY OF EDMONDS
GENERALNOTES PROJECT DATA -VIrC- V$40- Or- 'T HC- N64-r o P L.JA%(
tierwav, A -AM%A-se R16Kv ALL"
RAN1AWFR2WxqW=7M
L ALLWwwwwwwommmatwAmwev"
C,w0,t?x5mw0wCFAW�0kP=wm=ww
Avow
00ININRLOM TYPE
MLOMOMMARTORMWOMOM WOOF
NOMW�MP�WALL�VMUAAT
CBMWFVAK=L
000mommommvWYALLOOmmmmPAW slawm -W -moommom
._,Vw�
L GDWKCMMW=VMVVW W==CPTfN0V= MIC
MOMATALL0000M
ANANCIRMOMM WOROWWWWALL
aFMA"PIMPAMOMMANDWK
oftwwwriummmm"m
�m"%mm"�vmKown
WMVAL0L2MA�8=qAACQNffPYMY
LOW=
IL RNA*
10"mu Mm=. EVE..
AR�
P=T90WA=WWWWA00N==VMH1M
Milo=
IL PA0=F=MWAN0PV=WW09= Pft%
PNWWLUW8=1WPMWMTML0W,MVC0=QN=M LEGAL DESCRIPTION
M10=LY
UZ.d= I
TAX NUMBER
IL
DEFERRED SUBMITTALS
ALLML N1�.EktQM1MW1%1W11.6;A-1L I
VWY&WA=WWNff==1WWNL10W== FW40YCALCUOTIoNs, SUBCOWIRAM��
MUTT A3 SOON AS T�Y WWNWC�
-CW
M,=m.
MUM
W=
Ripe %NWR
IL 41RE SNW�L", �A�14�41ft^OltGl"
SMNI
3L snoMmmoMm HEIGHT CALVS
wow�-Wm ADJ. SLW
Q%Um
QN%%Krd9w"wmv0mwwAmUvwm
JL 1"WM�W�NAPFFAMYRffOAM
�HT
r;—BIDG. 30'-0
IL
"OUTM10mcmapman om
I ALLRIN= vv1LmEKTPJmWRW&�
09VRn=ffN13X1M�0F@0CKWWL
I emu=
L
*dK=0RWL9H0W�V0LWARUVXF4L - — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — — —
IL M
IL
DAYMN 8T,
SITE %AN
/7
City of Edmonds
AUG 13 2015
_0 C
01-1Y OF
Traffic Impact Analysis Worksheet
Name of Proposed Project:
-0,
f 5 Luz. 0 15-- 10101
,,IN-rZ IrEAUT (rwPF6()&m4E_k17_
Owner/Applicant
tr_ ('16" J4NT.'7--
Name
-!�7
Street/Mailing Address
#A. !J8b-Z6
city State Zip
Telephone:
Applicant Contact Person:
- A4q;9y 444�*
Name
64-q POe� C-7- UJA-V
Street/Mailing Address
,5ZW aA
city State zip
Telephone: 4-7,'s - -1 -(* - 015W
Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis (if applicable):
Firm Name
Telephone:
THRESHOLD LEVELS OF ANALYSIS
Contact Name
E-mail:
Project Traffic Levels
Sections to Complete
1. Less than 25 peak -hour trips generated
I and 7 only (Worksheet/Checklist)
11. More than 25 peak -hour trips generated
All sections
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Location - Street address: n"—
(Attach a vicinity map and site plan.)
b. Specify existing land use:
t2
c. Specify proposed type and size of development: 7 -Zr�,5 F-
(# of residential units andlor squarefootage of building)
Revised on 6124110
E82 - Traffic Impact Ana�jkvis Worksheel
Page I of 5
d. Date construction will begin and be completed: I— (ZF — o5 �7- 15 - �Sr
e. Define proposed access locations:
f Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: A/' -ESS
.6 Eg!�?
2. TRW GEN ERATtON
Source shall be the Eighth Edition of the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) Trip Generation
manual. For independent fee calculations, the current edition of the ITE manual may be used.
ADT = Average Daily Traffic
PM Peak -hour trips (AM, noon or school peak may also apply as directed by the City Engineer)
a. Existing Site Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
PM Peak-l-lour,rrips
Daily (ADT) IN OU
b. Proposed Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
PM Peak -Hour Trips
Daily (ADT) IN OU
c. Net New Project Trip Generation Table:
Land Use
Daily (ADT)
PM Peak -Hour
Trips
IN
OUT
d. State assumptions and methodology for internal, link -diverted or passby trips:
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic Impaci Analysis Worksheel Page 2 of 5
7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic
impact fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached)
and as identified In ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations
in ECDC 18.82.130.
LH—ANGE IN USE
Fee for prior use shall be based on fee established at the time the prior use was pen-nittcd. if the
previous use was permitted prior to the adoption of Ordinance 3516 (cffectivc date: 09/12/04),
the 2004 ECDC 18.82.120 impact fee shall be used.
ITE Land Use Category
Per Unit
Fee Rate
New Use
Prior tT se
X
X
New Use Fee: S e:
V777--X Prior Use Fe
I
E-1 NEW DEVELOPMENT
Units in
square feet,
4 of dwelling,
— vfp, etc.
f--7— 6 5 F I
I Units in
ITE Land Use Category Per Unit square feet,
Fee Rate # of dwelling,
vfp, etc.
New Use X
'�-] OTHER
WAT"d- A-ry ATMX-
WDEPENaENT FEE CALCULATION: $200.00 L+ consultant
TOTAL TRAFFIC IMPACTFEE $
Z4/1
k-11Y Of Lamonas, Engineering Division Approval
1 No impact fees will be due, nor will a credit be given, for an impact fee calculation resulting in a net negative.
Revised on 6124110 E82 - Traffic litipact A natvsis Worksheel
Page S of 5
Ct'tp of
DEPARTMENT OF BUILDINGS
iqko
if IF F
'qq4M411W etttft
Occupancy established by this certificate:
B/S2
AIIIIIIIIIIL..�
International Building Code Section 11 0\,
BuildingzP4Tit-#: BLD2008-0287
Dwelling Units: **N/A**. No. Stories: 2
Typipi6orisOuction: VB Sprinklered Basement: No
Maximum, ccupant oa
oom. capacity signs,-v
Building Owner: Dr. Jantz
THE Jantz Building HAS BEEN 'INSPE&Eb,AN
THE INTERNATIONAL BUILDING COI
THE PROPOSED OCCUPANCY IS CLASSIFIE D.
Ith
Issued this 8
1,14-1 ��**90!* (P�i IBC 1004)
Tfpain posted at all times.
�-
n6r-Ad'd�e"-.�-.-5'4"7-Dayton-Street,tEdmonds, WA 98020
ArfRPIVE OMPLYING',WITH-THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE 2006 EDITION OF
ITY FOR THE GROUP AND DIVI�16N OF OCCUPANCY AND THE USE FOR WHICH
d A—y 7 -o f 4 �—ar c 6 -- 2 �01 1'
BtAI-01
BY: V— 'K
This certificate shall be posted in a conspicuous public area and shall not be removed, mutilated or obscur�maintained in legible cond �ti.n 11 times. Any change of occupancy or use requires a building permit and a new
Certificate of Occupancy issued by the City of Edmonds Building Official.
q/ q/ \V \V \V \V \V \V \V \V \V T \V q/ \V \V \V \V q/ q/ \V q/ T \V \V
----------------------------------- ------- I ----------------------------------------------- 8 ------ ------------------------- 9 ----------------- ---------------------------
I
OV EDA,
"04
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 5hAvenue North Edmonds, WA 98020
Phone: 425.771.0220 Fax: 425.771.0221 - Web: www.ci.edmonds.wa.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICEs DEPARTMENT: PLANNING DivisION
I 4C. 199"
ADMINISTRATIVE DESIGN REVIEW
-STAFFDEasioN-
BLD-2011-0613 Project Proposal
The Center is proposing to mount two cedar trellises and frames above existing windows on either side of
the main Dayton Street entrance. The site is zoned Downtown Business (BD-2).
Property Owner
Gregg Jantz
PO Box 700
Edmonds, WA 98020
Applicant
Francis Sgillane
22319 76 Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Design Review Process and Criteria
Contractor
Edmonds Landscaping
22319 76h Ave. W
Edmonds, WA 98026
Due to the location and type of project (SEPA determination not required), district -based design review
by staff is required according to Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC) 20.12 (a Type I
decision). There are no specific design standards for the BD-2 zone so the proposal is reviewed against
the policies and objectives of the Downtown Activity Center contained in the Comprehensive Plan.
Analysis
1. Comprehensive Plan Compliance.
a. Goals, Policies and Objectives. The goals, policies and objectives for the Downtown Activity
Center (Downtown Convenience) are located on pages 55 — 60 and are intended to encourage the
development of high quality, well -designed projects that reflect the values of the citizens of
Edmonds. The proposal satisfies the intent of following goals, policies and objectives of the
Comprehensive Plan:
i. "Improve streetscape character to enhance pedestrian activity in downtown retail, general
commercial, and residential areas." (page 5 6)
ii. "Create an active, safe and lively street -edge." (page 56)
iii. "Improve the visual andphysical character and quality ofDowntown Edmonds." (page 59)
Findings and Decision
Based on the facts and analysis of this report, staff finds that The Center's trellis proposal will provide
additional interest and depth to the streetscape and therefore satisfies the applicable criteria and standards
in the Comprehensive Plan as required in section 20.12.030 ECDC. As a result, the design of this project
(File No. BLD-2011-0613) is APPROVED,
I have review5� the application for compliance with the Edmonds Community D nt Code.
7Pu
Mike Clugston, Planning Division hate '
I�Lp,z 0 / / -6 b 13 Page I of2
,��O
i
File No. BLD-2011-0613
Jantz Building trellises
Appeals
Per ECDC 20.01.003 and 20.07.006, appeal of this Type I decision must be filed by a party of record with
standing to file a land use petition in Snohomish County superior court within 21 days of the issuance of
the decision.
Page 2 qf2
NO=
GEOTECHNICAL
ENGINEERING EVALUATION
JANTZ OFFICE ADDITION
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON
PREPARED FOR
MR. WARREN LAFON
S TR
a EET FILE
RECEIVED
APR 0 8 2008
BUILDING DEPARTMENT
CITY OF. EDMONDS
I
F
I
I
I
I
F,11
1-1
I
I
I
I
I
-0000eKN1 Gww A
Main Off ice
17311 — 135h Avenue NE, A-500
Woodinville, WA 98072
(425)486-1669 FAX(425)481-2510
(425) 337-1669 Snohomish County
March 28, 2008
Mr. Warren LaFon
Warren LaFon, Architect
849 Puget Way -
Edmonds, Washington 98020
0
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
ASSOCIATES9 INC*
GEOTECHNicAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
NGA File No. 784908
Dear Mr. LaFon:
Engineering -Geology Branch
437 East Penny Road
Wenatchee, WA 98801
(509) 665-7696 FAX (509) 665-7692
We are pleased to submit the attached report titled "Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation — Jantz Office
Addition — Edmonds, Washington." This report summarizes the existing surface and subsurface
conditions within the site and provides general recommendations for the proposed site development. Our
services were completed in general accordance with the proposal signed by you on March 6, 2008.
A new 2-story addition is planned on the northwestern portion of the site. The development area is level
and is covered with asphalt and landscaping areas. Stormwater is planned to be directed into an existing
system.
We performed one hand auger on the planned development area. Our exploration indicated that the site is
underlain by competent glacial outwash soil. We have concluded that the site is generally compatible
with the planned development. We have recommended that the foundation for the addition be founded on
the underlying medium dense or better native soil for bearing capacity and settlement considerations.
These soils should generally be encountered approximately two feet below the existing ground surface,
based on our exploration. In the attached report, we have also included recommendations for site grading,
foundation support, and site drainage.
I
beotechnical Engineering Aation
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
I
1]
I
7
I
F�
I
I
I
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Summary - Page 2
We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you on this project. Please contact us if you have any
questions regarding this report or require further information.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Three Copies Submitted
TABLE OF CONTENTS
INTRODUCTION...................................................................................................................................... 1
SCOPE......................................................................................................................................................... 1
SITECONDITIONS .................................................................................................................................. 2
SURFACECONDITIONS .............................................................................................................................. 2
SUBSURFACECONDITIONS ........................................................................................................................ 2
HYDROLOGICCONDITIONS ....................................................................................................................... 3
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION ........................................................................................................ 3
SEISMICHAZARD ...................................................................................................................................... 3
EROSIONHAZARD ............................................... I ...................................................................................... 3
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ................................................................................... 4
GENERAL................................................................................................................................................... 4
EROSIONCONTROL ................................................................................................................................... 5
SITE PREPARATION AND GRADING ........................................................................................................... 5
TEMPORARYSLOPES ................................................................................................................................. 6
FOUNDATIONS........................................................................................................................................... 7
STRUCTURALFILL .................................................................................................................................... 8
SLAB -ON -GRADE ...................................................................................................................................... 9
PAVEMENTS.............................................................................................................................................. 9
SITEDRAINAGE ......................................................................................................................................... 9
USEOF THIS REPORT .......................................................................................................................... 10
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure I —
Vicinity Map
Figure 2 —
Site Plan
Figure 3 —
Soil Classification Chart
Figure 4 —
Hand Auger Log
Figure 5 —Grain-size
Sieve Analysis
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
I - - 0 0
Geotechnical Engineering Evaluation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
INTRODUCTION
This report presents the results of our geotechnical engineering investigation and evaluation of the
proposed Jantz office building addition located at 547 Dayton Avenue in Edmonds, Washington, as
shown on the Vicinity Map in Figure 1. The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site's
surface and subsurface conditions, and to provide geotechnical recommendations for site development.
For our use in preparing this report, we were provided with site plans titled "An Addition to the Office
Building for Gregory Jantz — 547 Dayton Street — Edmonds, WA," dated January 9, 2008, prepared by
Warren LaFon Architect, showing the existing site conditions and planned improvements.
The site is currently occupied by a two-story office building. Development plans include the construction
of a new 2-story addition with a slab -on -grade in the northwestern portion of the property. Stormwater is
planned to be directed into an existing system. The proposed site layout is shown on the Site Plan in
Figure 2.
ISCOPE
The purpose of this study is to explore and characterize the site subsurface conditions, and provide
for development. Specifically, includes
general recommendations
site our scope of services the
following:
1.
Review available soil and geologic maps of the area.
2.
Explore the subsurface soil and groundwater conditions within the site with hand auger
explorations.
3.
Perform grain -size sieve analysis on soil samples, as necessary.
4.
Provide recommendations for earthwork and foundation support.
5.
Provide recommendations for temporary slopes.
6.
Provide recommendations for slab and pavement subgrade preparation.
7.
Provide recommendations for site drainage and erosion control.
8.
Document the results of our findings, conclusions, and recommendations in a written
geotechnical'report.
I
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
(3eotechnical Engineering E&ation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 2
SITE CONDITIONS
Surface Conditions
The property is rectangular -shaped and is approximate 0.15-acre in size. The property is currently
occupied by a 2-story office building. The property is bordered to the north by an alley, to the east and
west by commercial/office buildings, and to the south by Dayton Avenue.
The new development is planned in the northwestern portion of the property. The project area is currently
unoccupied, and covered with asphalt and landscaping areas. We did not observe any standing water
during our site visit on Friday, March 14, 2008.
Subsurface Conditions
Geology: The geologic units for this site are shown on the Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Part of
the Edmonds West Quadrangles, Snohomish Counly, Washington, by James P. Minard (USGS 1983).
The site is mapped as transitional beds (Qtb) and Advance Outwash (Qva). The transitional beds are
described as clay, silt and fine sand, and the advance outwash soils are descried as mostly clean, pebbly
sand. Our explorations encountered silty sand with gravel generally consistent with the description of
Iadvance outwash.
Explorations: The subsurface conditions within the site were explored on March 14, 2008 by performing
one hand auger to a depth of 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface. The approximate location of our
exploration is shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A geologist from NGA was present during the
explorations, examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered, obtained samples of the different
soil types, and maintained a log of the hand auger.
The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil. Classification System,
presented in Figure 3. The log of our hand auger is attached to this report and is presented as Figure 4.
We present a brief summary of the subsurface conditions in the following paragraph. For a detailed
description of the subsurface conditions, the log of the hand auger should be reviewed.
At the surface of Hand Auger 1, we encountered approximately 0.5 feet of medium dense, dark brown,
fine to coarse sand with gravel which we interpreted to be topsoil. Below the topsoil, we encountered
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
Oeotechnical Engineering Akation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 3
approximately 2.5 feet of medium dense, brown, fine to medium sand with gravel which we interpreted to
be modified ground. Below the modified ground, we encountered light brown, medium dense, silty fine
to coarse sand with gravel, which we interpreted to be native advance outwash. Hand Auger I was
terminated in the advance outwash at a depth of 5.5 feet below the existing ground surface.
Hydrologic Conditions
Groundwater seepage was not encountered in the hand auger. However, perched groundwater may occur
on the site during extended periods of wet weather. Perched water occurs when surface water infiltrates
through less dense, more permeable soils and accumulates on top of underlying, less permeable soils.
Perched water does not represent a regional groundwater "table" within the upper soil horizons. Perched
water tends to vary spatially and is dependent upon the amount of precipitation. We would expect the
amount of perched water to decrease during drier times of the year and increase during wetter periods.
SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION
Seismic Hazard
We reviewed the 2006 International Building Code (IBC) for seismic site classification for this project.
Since medium dense soil was encountered underlying the site at depth, the site conditions best fit the IBC
description for Site Class D.
Hazards associated with seismic activity include liquefaction potential and amplification of ground
motion. Liquefaction is caused by a rise in pore pressures in a loose, fine sand deposit beneath the
groundwater table. . It is our opinion that the competent advance outwash interpreted to underlie the site
has a low potential for liquefaction or amplification of ground motion.
Erosion Hazard
The criteria used for determination of the erosion hazard for affected areas include soil type, slope
gradient, vegetation cover, and groundwater conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative
cover and the specific surface soil types, which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The Soil
Survey of Snohomish County Area, Washington, by the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) was reviewed to
determine the erosion hazard of the on -site soils. The surface soil for this site was mapped as Alderwood
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
6eotechnical Engineering Aation 0
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 4
Urban land complex, 2 to 8 percent slopes. The erosion hazard for this material is listed as slight. It is
our opinion that the erosion hazard for site soi Is should be low in areas where the site is not disturbed.
LABORATORY ANAYLYSIS
We performed one grain -size sieve analysis on a soil samples from the hand auger. The results of the
sieve analysis is presented as Figure 5.
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
General
It is our opinion from a geotechnical standpoint that the site is compatible with the planned development.
Our explorations indicated that the site is generally underlain by competent native advance outwash soils.
However, we did encounter small areas of modified ground in the area of our exploration, indicating that
previous grading activities may have occurred on the site, possibly during the construction of the existing
building. The modified ground should be re -compacted, or replaced with structural fill. The native soils
should provide adequate support for foundation, slab, and pavement loads. We recommend that the
building be designed utilizing shallow foundations. Footings should extend through and loose soil, and
be founded on the underlying medium dense or better native soil, or structural fill extending to these soils.
The medium dense or better soil should typically be encountered approximately two feet below the
existing surface, based on our explorations.
The upper soils encountered on this site are considered moisture -sensitive, and may disturb when wet.
We recommend that construction take place during the drier summer months, if possible. If construction
is to take place during wet weather, the soils may disturb and additional expenses and delays may be
expected due to the wet conditions. Additional expenses could include the need for placing a blanket of
rock spalls to protect exposed subgrades and construction traffic areas. The native on -site soils could be
used as structural fill provided they could be compacted to specifications. This will depend on the
moisture content of the soils at the time of construction. NGA should be retained to determine if the on -
site soils can be used as structural fill material during construction.
I
I
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
I
'Geotechnical Engineering Aation 0
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 5
Erosion Control
The erosion hazard for the on -site soils is listed as slight for exposed soils, but actual erosion potential
will be dependent on how the site is graded and how water is allowed to concentrate. Best Management
Practices (BMPs) should be used to control erosion. Areas disturbed during construction should be
protected from erosion. Erosion control measures may include diverting surface water away from the
stripped or disturbed areas. Silt fences and/or straw bales should be erected to prevent muddy water from
leaving the site. Disturbed areas should be planted with vegetation or paved as soon as practical. The
erosion potential of areas not stripped of vegetation or where pavement is removed should be low.
Site Preparation and Grading
After erosion control measures are implemented, site preparation should consist of removing the asphalt
and loose soils from the building and other structural areas to expose medium dense or better native soils.
This material should be cleaned of organics and other debris and then be stockpiled for re -use as
structural fill. Our exploration generally encountered medium dense or better native soils approximately
two feet below the existing ground surface. However, additional stripping may be required if areas of
undocumented fill and/or loose soil are encountered in unexplored areas of the site. We recommend that
the modified ground found in the building and pavement areas be reworked to structural fill
specifications.
After removing the asphalt and loose soils, if the exposed subgrade appears to be loose, it should be
compacted to a non -yielding condition and then proof -rolled with a heavy rubber -tired piece of
equipment. Areas observed to pump or weave during the proof -roll test should be reworked to structural
fill specifications or over -excavated and replaced with properly compacted structural fill or rock spalls. If
loose soils are encountered in the pavement areas, the loose soils should be removed and replaced with
rock spalls or granular structural fill. If significant surface water flow is encountered during construction,
this flow should be diverted around areas to be developed, and the exposed subgrades should be
maintained in a semi -dry condition.
The upper site soils are considered moisture -sensitive, and may disturb when wet. We recommend that
construction take place during the drier summer months if possible. However, if construction takes place
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
i3eotechnical Engineering Aation 0
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 6
during the wet season, additional expenses and delays should be expected due to the wet conditions.
Additional expenses could include the need for placing a blanket of rock spalls on exposed subgrades,
construction traffic areas, and paved areas prior to placing structural fill. Wet weather grading will also
require additional erosion control and site drainage measures. The existing material may be partially
suitable for use as structural fill. The underlying native soils may be suitable for use as structural fill,
depending on the moisture content of the soil at the time of construction. NGA should be retained to
evaluate the suitability of all on -site and imported structural fill material during construction.
Temporary Slopes
We do not anticipate tall cuts for this project, but cuts may be needed for utility installation. Temporary
cut slope stability is a function of many factors, including the type and consistency of soils, depth of the
cut, surcharge loads adjacent to the excavation, length of time a cut remains open, and the presence of
surface or groundwater. It is exceedingly difficult under these variable conditions to estimate a stable,
temporary, cut slope angle. Therefore, it should be the responsibility of the contractor to maintain safe
slope configurations at all times as indicated in OSHA guidelines for cut slopes.
The following information is provided solely for the benefit of the owner and other design consultants and
should not be construed to imply that Nelson Geotechnical Associates, Inc. assumes responsibility forjob
site safety. Job site safety is the sole responsibility of the project contractor.
For planning purposes, we recommend that temporary cuts in the near surface loose to medium dense
material be no steeper than 2 Horizontal to I Vertical (2H: IV). The underlying dense outwash could be
excavated at a IRIV inclination. If significant groundwater seepage or surface water flow were
encountered, we would expect that flatter inclinations would be necessary. We recommend that cut
slopes� be protected from erosion. The slope protection measures may include covering cut slopes with
plastic sheeting and diverting surface runoff away from the top of cut slopes. We do not recommend
vertical slopes for cuts deeper than four feet, if worker access is necessary. We recommend that cut slope
heights and inclinations conform to appropriate OSHA/WISHA regulations.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Atiation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 7
Foundations
Conventional shallow spread foundations should be placed on medium dense or better native soils, or be
supported on structural fill or rock spalls extending to those soils. Medium dense soils should be
encountered approximately two feet below ground surface based on our explorations. Where
undocumented fill or less dense soils are encountered at foot ing bearing elevation, the subgrade should be
over -excavated to expose suitable bearing soil. The over -excavation may be filled with structural fill, or
the footing may be extended down to the competent native soils. If footings are supported on structural
fill, the fill zone should extend outside the edges of the footing a distance equal to one-half of the depth of
the over -excavation below the bottom of the footing.
Footings should extend at least 18 inches below the lowest adjacent finished ground surface for frost
protection and bearing capacity considerations. Foundations should be designed in accordance with the
2006 IBC. Footing widths should be based on the anticipated loads and allowable soil bearing pressure.
Water should not be allowed to accumulate in footing trenches. All loose or disturbed soil should be
removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete.
For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of
not more than 2,000 pounds per square foot (psf) be used for the design of footings founded on the
medium dense or better native soils or structural fill extending to the competent native material. The
foundation bearing soil should be evaluated by a representative of NGA. We should be consulted if
higher bearing pressures are needed. Current IBC guidelines should be used when considering increased
allowable bearing pressure for short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Potential foundation
settlement using the recommended allowable bearing pressure is estimated to be less than one -inch total
and '/2-inch differential between adjacent footings or across a distance of about 20 feet, based on our
experience with similar projects.
Lateral loads may be resisted by friction on the base of the footing and passive resistance against the
subsurface portions of the foundation. A coefficient of friction of 0.35 may be used to calculate the base
friction and should be applied to the vertical dead load only. Passive resistance may be calculated as a
triangular equivalent fluid pressure distribution. An equivalent fluid density of 200 pounds per cubic foot
(pcf) should be used for passive resistance design for a level ground surface adjac ent to the footing. This
level surface should extend a distance equal to at least three times the footing depth. These recommended
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSO CIA TES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Aation 0
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 8
values incorporate safety factors of 1.5 and 2.0 applied to the estimated ultimate values for frictional and
passive resistance, respectively. To achieve this value of passive resistance, the foundations should be
poured "neat" against the native medium dense soils or compacted fill should be used as backfill against
the front of the footing. We recommend that the upper one -foot of soil be neglected when calculating the
passive resistance.
Structural Fill
General: Fill placed beneath foundations, pavement, or other settlement -sensitive structures should be
placed as structural fill. Structural fill, by definition, is placed in accordance with prescribed methods and
standards, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field
monitoring procedures would include the perfon-nance of a representative number of in -place density tests
to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. The area to receive the fill
should be suitably prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading subsection prior to
beginning fill placement.
Materials: Structural fill should consist of a good quality, granular soil, free of organics and other
deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about three inches. All-weather structural
fill should contain no more than five percent fines (soil finer than U.S. No. 200 sieve, based on that
fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve). The on -site soils may be suitable for use as structural fill
depending on the moisture, debris, and organic content of the soil during construction. We should be
retained to evaluate all proposed structural fill material prior to placement.
Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of structural fill may proceed. All filling
should be accomplished in uniform lifts up to eight inches thick. Each lift should be spread evenly and be
thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas
and pavement subgrade should be compacted to a minimum of 95 percent of its maximum dry density.
Maximum dry density, in this report, refers to that density as determined by the ASTM D-1557
Compaction Test procedure. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about
two percent of optimum so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to over -
excavate and remove wet soils in cases where drying to a compactable condition is not feasible. All
compaction should be accomplished by equipment of a type and size sufficient to attain the desired degree
of compaction.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
'Geotechnical Engineering Aation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 9
Slab -on -Grade
Slabs -on -grade should be supported on subgrade soils prepared as described in the Site Preparation and
Grading subsection of this report. We recommend that all floor slabs be underlain by at least six inches
of free -draining gravel with less than three percent by weight of the material passing Sieve #200 for use
as a capillary break. We recommend that the capillary break be hydraulically connected to the footing
drain system to allow free drainage from under the slab. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic
sheeting (6-mil minimum), should be placed over the capillary break material. An additional 2-inch thick
moist sand layer may be used to cover the vapor barrier. This sand layer is optional and is intended to
protect the vapor barrier membrane during construction.
Pavements
Pavement subgrade preparation, and structural filling where required, should be completed as
recommended in the Site Preparation and Grading and Structural Fill subsections of this report. The
pavement subgrade should be proof -rolled with a heavy, rubber -tired piece of equipment, to identify soft
or yielding areas that require repair. We should be retained to observe the proof -rolling and recommend
repairs prior to placement of the asphalt or hard surfaces.
Site Drainage
Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that storinwater is directed to an
appropriate stormwater collection system. Water should not be allowed to stand in any areas where
footings, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from
the structures. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a minimum gradient of three percent, for
a distance of at least 10 feet away from the structures. Surface water should be collected by permanent
catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into an appropriate discharge system.
Subsurface Drainage: If groundwater is encountered during construction, we recommend that the
contractor slope the bottom of the excavation and collect the water into ditches and small sump pits where
the water can be pumped out and routed into a permanent storm drain.
We recommend the use of footing drains around the structure. Footing drains should be installed at least
one foot below planned finished floor elevation. The drains should consist of a minimum four -inch -
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Geotechnical Engineering Aation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No. 784908
Page 10
diameter, rigid, slotted or perforated, PVC pipe surrounded by free -draining material wrapped in a filter
fabric. We recommend that the free -draining material consist of an 18-inch-wide zone of clean (less than
three -percent fines), granular material placed along the back of walls. Pea gravel is an acceptable drain
material, or drainage composite may also be used instead. The free -draining material should extend up
the wall to one foot below the finished surface. The top foot of backfill should consist of impermeable
soil placed over plastic sheeting or building paper to minimize surface water or fines migration into the
footing drain. Footing drains should discharge into tightlines leading to an appropriate collection and
discharge point with convenient cleanouts to prolong the useful life of the drains. Roof drains should not
be connected to wall or footing drains.
USE OF THIS REPORT
NGA has prepared this report for Warren LaFon Architect and their agents for use in the planning and
design of the development on this site only. The scope of our work does not include services related to
construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractors'
methods, techniques, sequences, or procedures, except as specifically described in our report for
consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions outside the locations of the
exploration. Our report, conclusions, and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of
subsurface conditions. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and
schedule.
We recommend that NGA be retained to provide monitoring and consultation services during
construction to confirm that the conditions encountered are consistent with those indicated by the
explorations, to provide recommendations for design changes should the conditions revealed during the
work differ from those anticipated, and to evaluate whether or not earthwork and foundation installation
activities comply with contract plans and specifications. We should be contacted a minimum of one week
prior to construction activities and could attend pre -construction meetings if requested.
Within the limitations of scope, schedule, and budget, our services have been performed in accordance
with generally accepted geotechnical engineering practices in effect in this area at the time this report was
prepared. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our observations, findings, and opinions are
a means to identify and reduce the inherent risks to the owner.
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
13eotechnical Engineering Akation
Jantz Office Addition
Edmonds, Washington
March 28, 2008
NGA File No, 184111
Page I I
It has been a pleasure to provide service to you on this project. If you have any questions or require
further information, please call.
Sincerely,
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
Anna Jordan
Staff Geologist
:F'�
Bala Dodoye-Alali
Project Geologist
O�
Khaled M. Shawish, PE
Principal
AJJ:BD:KMS:pkw
Five Figures Attached
NEL SON GEO TECHNICA L A SSO CIA TES, INC.
0
VICINITY MAP
Not to Scale
200. M
W
600 It
V
Daley St -
Project
gg s7t]
S plLa
Cfvk
Iz Site
Playftild Edn
V,
4 B B'11 St
,ilst
—E"l Wds
-I—Iima—ln —St F
71
�w
a IRna_-S-
gn St n
T:M8Jft2wM.-
Ln En jEn Ln
[nuU, -
FCedarSt
owell Wa
plu— —�t—
nd DF
=r
la 1_
�well Way]
V
]ben Q
0�y Park
Seamont Ln I
LA
�SQ�t\'__ ne,St ne St
h'Rd
FIr
CD
A�tf
0 2009 Mi�qu M��' 6�-N—MnkQ orjele as
3 Coola
Edmonds, WA
Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. I Date I Revision By I CK
784908 Jantz Office Addition ----�NGA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 3/2608 Original J
Vicinity Map GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Figure 1 17311-135th A— NE. A-5W S-h—M C—ty (425) 337-1669
—11- ~=./C 1- (509) 665.7 96
(44) t48(d� 166i /WFA..94880172251 0 —=V-ftd, — —1
0
Alley
HA-1!
t-Proposed
Office Existing Parking
Existing Building
L. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Dayton Street
LEGEND
Property line
HA-1
Number and approximate 0 20 40
location of hand auger
Scale: 1 inch 20 feet
Reference: Site Plan based on a site plan titled "An Addition to the Office Building for Gregory Jantz-547 Dayton Street, Edmonds, WA,"
prepared by Warren La Fon, Architects, dated January 11, 2008.
Project Number NELSON GEOTECHNICAL No. Date Revision By CK
784908 Jantz Office Addition ---�N�GA ASSOCIATES, INC. 1 3/26/08 Original JD BD
Site Plan GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
Figure 2 17311-13ftA- NE,A-500 S-h—mh C.unty (425) 337-1669
Woodi-11., WA 98072 W-=./Ch.lan (509) 665�7696
(425) 486-1669 1 F.. 481 �251 0 nel.ngeo�ch.mm
UNIFIED SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM
GROUP
MAJOR DIVISIONS
GROUPNAME
SYMBOL
CLEAN
GW
WELL -GRADED, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL
COARSE-
GRAVEL
GRAVEL
GP
POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL
GRAINED
MORE THAN 50 %
GRAVEL
GM
SILTY GRAVEL
OF COARSE FRACTION
RETAINED ON
SOILS
NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
GC
CLAYEY GRAVEL
SAND
CLEAN
SW
WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND
SAND
SP
POORLY GRADED SAND
MORE THAN 50 %
RETAINED ON
MORE THAN 50 %
NO. 200 SIEVE
OF COARSE FRACTION
SAND
SM
SILTY SAND
PASSES NO. 4 SIEVE
WITH FINES
SC
CLAYEY SAND
FINE -
SILT AND CLAY
ML
SILT
INORGANIC
GRAINED
LIQUID LIMIT
CL
CLAY
LESS THAN 50 %
SOILS
ORGANIC
OL
ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY
SILT AND CLAY
MH
SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT
INORGANIC
MORE THAN 50 %
PASSES
LIQUID LIMIT
CH
CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FLAT CLAY
NO. 200 SIEVE
50 % OR MORE
ORGANIC
OH
ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT
HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS
PT
PEAT
NOTES:
1) Field classification is based on visual SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS:
examination of soil in general
accordance with ASTM D 2488-93. D ry - Abse n ce of mo istu re, d u sty, d ry to
the touch
2) Soil classification using laboratory tests
is based on ASTM D 2488-93. Moist - Damp, but no visible water.
3) Descriptions of soil density or Wet - Visible free water or saturated,
consistency are based on usually soil is obtained from
interpretation of blowcount data, below water table
visual appearance of soils, and/or
test data.
Project Number
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL
No.
Date
Revision
By
CK
784908
Jantz Office Addition
Soil Classification Chart
`__ �NGA ASSOCIATES, INC.
GEOTECKNICAL ENGINEERS & GEOLOGISTS
1
3/27108
Original
BO
BD
Figure 3
17311-135th A— NE. A-5W Snohomish County (425) 337-1669
Woodi-111., WA 98072 Mn.toh-/C��n (5W) 78� 56
(425) 486-1669 / F. 481-2510 —.1songeo—h corn
DEPTH(FEET)
HAND AUGER ONE
0.0-0.5
0.5-3.0
3.0-5.5
SJW:AJJ
0 LOG OF EXPLORATION 0
Usc SOIL DESCRIPTION
GRAY BROWN, FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH GRAVEL, TRACE ROOTS, AND TRACE
SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
BROWN, FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH SILT (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST)
ORANGE, FINE TO COARSE SAND WITH TRACE SILT AND GRAVEL
(LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENES, WET)
SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 0.5,1.5, AND 4.0 FEET
GROUNDWATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED
HAND AUGER WAS COMPLETED AT 5.5 FEET ON 03/14/08
NELSON GEOTECHNICAL ASSOCIATES, INC.
FILE NO 784908
FIGURE 4
.0
-n
—4 M
co
U.S. STANDARD SIEVE SIZE
(D Z
C)
ts)
C:
00 3
cy,
100
90
80
5* N
< 0
1
L—[L--
JL
CD =h
> 0
70
-
I
I
:3 CD
>
60
>-
0
m
=3
Of
W 50
z
UFL:
z
z
W 40
ir '0
mn
>-
w 30
>
A 1>
>
r
20
EA
m
z > r
i U) 0
M 0 Z
10
m 0 C)
m
5 m
UR), -4 0
0-
0 M .1
m U) m
1000 100 10 1.0 0.1 0.01 0.001
W ro
r8u 0 z z
0-
GRAIN SIZE IN MILLIMETERS
3t-
>
r
RAVEL
SAND
COBBLES
—IN
SILT OR CLAY
z
COARSE F F E
COARSE� MEDIUM FINE
p
C)
OD
(D
U.S.C.
EXPLORATION
SAMPLE
SOIL
SYMBOL
NUMBER
DEPTH
SOIL DESCRIPTION
DISTRIBUTION
�)
;a
ce,
m
Brown, silty fine to coarse sand with
Gravel = 16%
m
*SM
HA-1
4.0 feet
gravel
Sand = 28%
Silt/Clay = 16%
0 X
1
NGA Drafting 2008X784908
Jant&sieve.dwg
-'M
oayton
."'�.P.0. Box 700
e'*4"EA' id WW98020':'
lmS,166,
807.1'.
0 e COT
e.com
'' k-cq�vn;?qyne.com-
7
%
?
Z&6.d
..-. - E 4L - �-V N'
'C E�:
The Center
;k�N
for Counseling and Health nc.
Fal� Licensed Mental Health and Chernical DependenciySeu s
Sim
July 1, 2008
City of Edmonds
Building Department
121 5th Ave N
Edmonds WA 98020
Re: 547 Dayton Street Expansion
Plan #: 2008-0287
Permit Coordinator: Warren LaFon
To Whom It May Concern:
SEP 3 0 2008
BUILOIN
crrY9'ffmAoF'TN&'Nr
�Vm 701/ S� INOT LI: D
�ED
A-1 e2 e
This letter is to acknowledge an agreement is in process for an easement for the neighbor
at 555 Dayton Street to utilize our retention drain at 547 Dayton Street, Edmonds WA
98020.
7 Sincerel
Gregory L. Jantz, Ph.D.
GLJ/amm
Cc: The Center, Inc./file
GJ/08citycifedmonds.g0l
NORTH SNOHOMISH BRANCH SOUTH SNOHOMISH BRANCH SOUTH KING BRANCH
PHONE 360-629-4842 PHONE 425-338-7671 PHONE 206-870-5191
TOLL -FREE 888-771-5166 TOLL -FREE 888-771-5166 TOLL -FREE 888-771-5166
FAX 360-629-2462 FAX 425-338-7672 FAX 206-870-2892
Prohibition on redisclosure This wfomtatson has been disclosed to you from records whose confidentiality is protected by federal law (42 CFR Part 2).
Federal regulation prohibits you from making further disclosure ofth,s material without the spec,fic written consent ofthe person to whom it pertains,
or as other —se permati,d by this reg.lat,on A general authorization for the release ofmedscal or other snformatson.s not suffic,ent for th,s purpose.
VV
WILCOX CONSTRUCTION INC.
234 5th Avenue South -Edmonds, WAS8020 CITY COPI
Rhone (425) 774-4185 - FAX (425) 774-4167
July 2, 2008
The City of Edmonds
t
121-5 h Avenue North
Edmonds, Washington 98020
Re: Contractor Letter of Responsibility
Dear Building Official,
STREET FILE
This letter shall serve as the written statement of responsibility from Wilcox Construction Inc. to
the City of Edmonds Building Official. We hereby acknowledge that control will be exercised to
obtain conformance with the construction documents approved by the building official. The
following procedures will be in place to insure that this control is maintained.
1. Shop Drawings/Product Submittals
a. Each material/product both supplied by vendor/supplier and/or subcontractor
shall be submitted to the PM of Wilcox Construction Inc. who will review and
approve, add comment, or reject prior to sending to the Architect of Record for
review and approval. Each submittal shall be approved and sent to the
appropriate vendor/supplier and/or subcontractor as approval to proceed prior to
its installation.
2. Special Inspections
a. A Special Inspection Agency shall be used as outlined in the Special Inspection
& Testing Agreement. All Special inspection reports will be mailed from Special
Inspection Agency to Wilcox Construction Inc., attention: Bob Wilcox as well as
to the City of Edmonds, Owner, and Architect. A copy of all special inspection
reports and/or approvals will be maintained on -site at all times.
The person(s) responsible for maintaining and executing the above referenced procedures and
their qualifications are as follows:
1. Bob Wilcox, Principal In Charge
a. 30+ years in the construction industry both as a Project Manager and a
Superintendent.
i n(r e L1,
Robert E. Wilcox
President
a, '11i
,JUL 14 2008
5LALUNG OEPART
r-rTyoFEDM0NJVff
MEN Ah
wwommm
ARCHITECTURE PLANNIING 94TERKM
OCT. 29,2008
LEIF BJOR13ACK
ASS'T BUfLDtNG OFFTCIAL
CITY OF EDMONDS
1215 T' AVE N.
EDMONDS, WA 98020
RE: JANTZ OFFICE ADDITION
MR. BJORBACK,
0
OCT 3 0 20,P3
8IL&IIING A rW'JT
Yo M
FW 9N
STREET FILE
THE ENTIRE BUILDING, AS ALTERED UNDER TFIIS PERMIT, WILL FULLY COMPLY WITH
ACCESSIBILITY CODES AS REQUIRED BY LBC 3409.7.
WARREN LAFON -ARCHITECT 849PUGETWAY EDMONDSWA98020 425.774.0580
S
KEETCU...
The Center
for Cotinseling and Health Resotirces Inc.
Ful� Licensed Mental Health and Chemical Dependency Services
May 16, 2008
City of Edmonds
Plan Check #2008-0287
Project Address: 547 Dayton Street
Re: First Floor Storage Area
The first floor storage area will be utilized for "dead files" and history files
and copies of my books will also be kept in this storage area.
Sincere
G r
'r. "r" I i..t, pt, n
regory L. Jantz, Ph.D.
Building Owner
GLJ/amm
I am an author
TUL 14 2098
-1-1 L G 1J ARTMENT
CfRN
oir
MONCS
NORTH SNOHOMISH BRANCH SOUTH SNOHOMISH BRANCH SOUTH KING BRANCH
PHONE 360-629-4842 PHONE 42S-338-7671 PHONE 206-870-S191
TOLL -FREE 888-771-5166 TOLL -FREE 888-771-5166 TOLL -FREE 888-771-5166
1 FAX 360-629-2462 FAX 425-338-7672 FAX 206-870-2892
Prohibition on redisclosure: This information has been disclosed to you from records whose confidentiality is protected by federal law (42 CFR Part 2).
Federal regulation prohibits you from making further disclosure ofthis material without the specific written consent oFthe person to whom it pertains,
or as otherwise permitted by this regulation. A general authorimtion for the release ofmedical or other information is not sufficient for this purpose
RESUB
JUL 14 2008
CITY OF EDMONDS C)F
TRAMC IMPACT ANALYSIS
Name of Proposed Project:
Owner/Applicant:
Name
StreetfMailing Vdress
4F,9A,feW W-4 iWo 70
city State Zip
Telephone:
WORK SHEET APPR , AS NOTED
NGINEERING
Da
Applicant Contact Person:
Name
,qe&
Street/MailinjAddriss
r=PWW42-:�
city State 1P
Telephone: Jk52
Traffic Engineer who prepared the Traffic Impact Analysis:
Firm Name
1. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
a. Street address (ifk-nown):
Contact Name
b. Location: &a—mewy!5
c. Specify existing land use: 1591z-
Telephone
(Attach a vicinity map and siteplan.)
d. Specify proposed type and size of development: QqEicr-- A1221-rlerA
I I
IVC>r q6J)J,4
e. When will the project begin construction and when will it be completed? _ k 4 ay 7Aff 5
-r7m,g
f Define proposed access locations:
H2r,Z1C- 51i9eW,4t-*,- I
g. Define proposed sight distance at site egress locations: 06 1 -�—
Page I
Five Years After Openinj! LOS:
With Project:
Without Project:
Note any assumptions/variations to standard analysis default values and justifications:
7. MITIGATION RECOMMENDATIONS
State recommended measures and fees required to mitigate project specific traffic impacts. Traffic impact
fee shall be calculated from the Edmonds Road Impact Fee Rate Study Table 4 (attached) and as identified
in ECDC 18.82.120, except as otherwise provided for independent fee calculations in ECDC 18.82.130.
5Y-1,5rr.
W- V 0 57 04:, -51=
/V&V -M/P-5 Z,-5-7//OcZ -�;F /5,'57
:36el 00
Y&A)
-d-
710
6�v IglIV5
SAENGRU>�cMity Prqj=ft%TtA GuidefintsXTraflnVAmlyWork 9-04.doc Page 5
LU
am
U.
F-
uj
LLJ
U:)
9
-40--
. vp--
I
I
i5�
LEGEND
A
m
FIF,,ST FLOO F-, FLAN
REQUIRED r=xIT TO OUTSIDE
Z
Qno
m
4 FIFM DEPARTMENT CONNECTION
co)
FIRE DEPARTMENT Ca4 -MCTION
z
r2m
C=
c
FCRT GAS ME I R
FPrV7 ELECTRICAL PANEL
eECONID FLOOR FLAN
",p
me P [ ]nr
I I* - ansal,
City of Edmo
#GHT-OF-WAM-CONS, UCTION
PERMIT
PermitNumber.-
Issue Date:
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: k,� To\,-j
9 0 1 9 q. Q� B. Type of Work (be specific): C LJ KQ P M (-kA L I LJ - ezelx
-yo
C. Contractor: :SW0\ACML<-,V4 Cuulql—�- -P- ntact: V uk N k8 em
Mailing Address:
Phone:
State License #: Gamcj�jc� -:%o Liability Insurance: Bond: $
D. Building Permit # (if applicable):
E. W Commercial E] Subdivision
6- Multi -Family E] Single Family
INSPECTOR:
Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
[J City Project Xutility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER)
n Other
I I INSPECTOR:
F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: ` rMves ONo G. Size of Cut: - X H. Chargq�_$
APPLICANT TO READ AND.SIGN
1\ ('- - ..� 1.�. -
INDEMNITY: Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold-'fhe'bty ofEdmonds harmless fr5m i Jurt -,., T-miai�s, or
claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of Edmonds, or any of its departments or
employees, including or not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense costs,. a�nd attorney fees by reaso�o' '- n
fgra hing"�hi.permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET,PA-TCH
IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIMEA DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT'
Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 24 hour notice is required for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Work and material is to be inspected during progress and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street shall be kept clean at all times.
Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the eno of the w
NO EXCEPTIONS. �rking day;
Ihave read the above statements and understand thepermit requirements and thepink copy of thepermitwillbe
available o e at all times es.
Signature:�Y, Date: (ee-
or or Ake
(Contract &0
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
FOR CITY USE ONLY
APPROVED BY: RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
TIME AUTHORIZED: VOID AFTER DAYS DISRUPTION FEE/FUND III;
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: RESTORATION FEE:'
-ID br=
PERMIT FEE:
TOTAL,FEE1-;&,z)
COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE:
DATE: ISSUED BY: e::
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT ISSUANCE Engrg. Div. 1991
8 9 0 1 o C5 -
City
,_9f.Edmon9
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION,
PERMIT
Permit Number. e-
C' Issue Date:
A3 )&ess or Vicinity of Construction:,,547 Dayton St 9518174
of Work (be specific): Sp-ryi ce
C. Contractor: -WaShington NatUral GAS
Mailing Address: 1122 75 St SW Everett
State License #: 98203
Contact:
Phone: "7-3284
Liability Insurance: Bond: $;
D. Building Permit # (if applicable): Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable):
E. F] Commercial EJ Subdivision F] City Project 10 Utility (PUD, GTE, WNG, CABLE, WATER)
E] Multi -Family [:] Single Family n Other
INSPECTOR: INSPECTOR: \-AiHvre-gTT
F. Pavement or Concrete Cut: Yes /[]No G. Size of Cut: x H. Chargq_$
t
(-----AP�LICANT TO READ AND §1
FN
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands and by his signature to this application, agrees to hold thelty ofEdmondq harmless from injuries, damages, or
�--claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made againsLfhetCity of Edmonds, or anylof its departments or
employees, including or not limited to the defense ofany legalproceedings including defense costs, a�d attorney fees by reason dfkraniing t 8permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP AND MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES'WILL BE BELD"UWTIi THE�FI�AL STREET PATCH
IS COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TimEA,DEBIT OR CREDIt WILL BEPROCESSED FOle-ISSUANCE TO THEAPPLICANT
Construction drawing of proposed work required with permit application.
A 24 hour notice is rtquired for inspection; Please call the Engineering Division, 771-0220.
Work and material is to be inspected during progress -and at completion.
Restoration is to be in accordance with City Codes.
Street shall be kept clean at all times. 1'' J
Traffic Control and Public Safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer.
All street cut ditches shall be patched with asphalt or City approved material prior to the end of the working day;
NO EXCEPTIONS.
Ihave read the above statements and understand thepermit requirements and thepink copy of thepermit will be
available on site at >all tim
�eor inspection purposes.
Signature: Date:
,(C'--'�ctoror ^Mnt'
CALL DIAL -A -DIG PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
FOR CITY USE ONLY
APPROVEDBY:
TIME A I UTHORIZED: VOID AFTER A\A 1'5—,DAYS
SPECIAL CONDITIONS: 11) A
RIGHT OF WAY DEPOSIT
DISRUPTION FEE/FUND Ill:
RESTORATION FEE:
PERMIT FEE:
TOTAL FEE:
COMMENTS: RECEIPT FEE.
DATE: 'ISSLTED,BY:,
NO WORK SHALL BEGIN PRIOR TO PERMIT IS'SUANCE
Eng. Div. 1994