Loading...
617 ELM PL.PDF11149 617 ELM PL ADDRESS: 617 ELM PL TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL #: 00736400003100 BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE) #: BLD19880512 COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR: CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: E] Conditional Waiver El Study Required E] Waiver CRITICAL AREAS #: DETERMINATION: El Conditional Waiver El Study Required Waiver DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S: PRD 1983-1, ADB 1983-88, ADB1991-86 (cover pond) DRAINAGE PLAN DATED: PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED: EASEMENT(S) RECORD FOR: PERMITS (OTHER - list permit #'s): PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED: SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: Not dated. SEWER LID FEE $: LID #: ESR 279 SHORT PLAT FILE: P 1983-9 LOT: LOT 31 1 BLOCK: ELM PLACE BLIK 000 D-00 SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED: SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #: GEOTECH REPORT DATED: September, 1986 STREET USE/ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #: FOR: WATER METER TAP CARD DATED: NONE IN FILE AS OF JUNE 11, 2008 OTHER: �W,,,_ USE PEFIMI CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE UtA 11 T C, 0 NSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB r, ER AnRES$ LEGAL DESC it I N C7CEY711111111ION NO lu MAILING ADD .to city TESC� TELEPHONE NUMBER PUBLIC FIGHT OF WAY PCR OFFICIAL STREET MAP. APPRO� EXISTING W REOUMCD DEDICATION NAME I PROPOSED7, �Vj FIGHT OF WAY C.NITRIJII�D,, P11—T IIIQUIIED STREET U.111EIMIT nCOIJtFED: SEE ENGINEEP114G MEMO DATED ci� TELE 17 ADDRESS 7, All METER 51 E BUILD, 3 SUPPLY TIZE F r/ N G IXTURF .1?11. �/Vb-l'),41111-11HON1 NUME1" ST I NuMBER 20 P SIGN AnEA 8 Lo BID scriptionol Property,includeaN easements ENV. RIEVIE ALLOWED PPOPOS W '1011PLITE Ell MPT below or attach four copies) z IPLANNING REVIEW BY YARDS zo"�a" S, HEI IT LOT COVET FRON7 10' SIDE PEAR 0 1 2�� , z ,REMARKS U-P111. M 8 1 N G D111ALT11t 111,VM, CIAL El MECHANICAL REPAIR RETAINING WALL SIGN E) UCAVATE FENCE DEMOLISH OWFILL -�HECKED BY Ty-- ow �com—ucll-- "OF I— X —FT) REMODEL PRE -MOVE :NSP.1 swim COMPLIANCE iNsp. L-J POOL 4kPECIAL lNtPECTOR "'EA. v1COWED OCCUPANT Wood LOCCUPA"CY . DR. 1'. No up 1?-3 LOAD ZTOVS' INSSRT APT.BLDG PENEWAL 8,,S 0 PROGRESS INSPECnONS PER U13C 305 NUMBER OF STORIES 44 66k 1",�,16K I NATURE OF WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PL�.—N) !,14 VALUA ION FEE DWOt7701Y PPLAN CHECK FEE 00 U 5-1 38 RVILDING 17 �PUMEING. f MECHAN11 L This Permit co,01`3 Work to Le (�ne on Private I �.ILY PrOv011Y F� Any Construction on the Public domain (CurtS. 31(jew lks. P GRADING,11"LL driveways, maroue2s, etc.) Will require separate permi ssion. �TAIESURCHAFGE Permit-Appl;cation: 180 Days Permit Limit: I Year - PloVicled Vvor� is Started Within 180 Days ENERGY CODE -Applicant, on behalf OT hIS Of her SPOUSe. neirs, assigns and i successors in int eFeSt, agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Ci J harmless the ty of Edmonds, WaPhington. its officials, e-P Oyees, and agents from any ant! atl claims for damigeS Of Whatever naturG. arising direcoy Or nd;reclly from the issue,,,, of this Permit, Issuance of this Permit Shall not be deemed to modify, waive or reduce ally roqtl:reM.e:)t PLAN CHE K DEPCS-7 7-1 0� any City Ordinance nor limit in any way the City's aL!l I i(Y to enforce any Ordinance -- Provision." TOTAL AMOUNT DUE -0 I hereby ackP0 w1odge that I have rea information given !S'correct; and that I am the owner, or authori?ed agent of ths, owner. I agre he duiy* e to Comply ATTENTION APPLICATION APPROVAL with lity and SIB �O laws regulatiria Construction: and In doing the Work authoriz. ed heroby. no -IS . This application is; not I a Permit U nl�ij r�rson will be employed in Violation ofjhe L jor Code of the State Of WaShington relating to Workmen's Cumpens'l. r,.k, storied by the Suild!nq Ofticial or 1, h li ni!j�ce Deputy; and fees -ar,,, p,,, j,.jj.,qpj S�F—Tu I TE SP,ED NSPIC�,ON Icknowledgeo It' Sp8l:aprividD d- oEFAF. 0- CITY. C, ��CIAL 16 ED MONDS ATTE ASEO BY M-3 2 IT IS UNLA-.1POL T� USE.OR OCCUPe A 61.1;l-DING OR STRUCT(ji`�E UNTIL A'Fitq�,4l_ INSP�CTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL oR CqIGINAL — �:,Ir YEL1*1,)-tA11—'01& A CERTIFICATE OF.' OCCUPA.NCY HAS* BeEN GRANTF-D U?,,: 3. A Litt ",W, - - - . At '0' ML FJO � AN 0, MAW 4 �'W ASO PIZ Ae E /-407 �3/ RMC Dir MAI tooV Sklj� 0 t - ir ,A125 e-P �/ 6444,C /'/? MEMO TO: 'Building Division FROM: Engineering Division SUBJECT: It/ After review of the subject building permi t appl icatiOn, we have the following comments: 1) Connection to City water system required. 2) Connection to City sanitary sewer system required. 3) Right-of-way permit required for any work on City property. 4) Driveway slope not to exceed 14'm. 5) Back water valve required if downstairs plumbing is below elevation of upstream manhole. 6) Water and sewer lines to be separated by 10 foot minimum. 7) Builder/owner responsible for con'Lainina 211 temporary runoff and erosion on site and may not impact neighboring properties in any way. 8) Construction hours from ;7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m. on w�ekdays and 10:00 a.im. to 6:00 p.m. on weekends and holidays. 9) No burning of construction refuse withn-ut apprairal hy Tr7ire Dept. STREET FILA/;Z. 000,5-12- SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ELM PLACE9 LOTS 30931932,36 Edmonds, Washington RECEIVED MAY 27 1988 PERMIT COUNTER PREPARED FOR The Homeland'Company PROJECT NO. 8608-24 SEPTEMBER 1986 ASSOCIATEE) EARTH SCIE11MCES, 11%JC 903 - 5th Avenue, Kirkland, Washington 98033 (206) 827-7701 0 - 0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION AND GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ELM PLACE RESIDENTIAL DEVELOPMENT � EDMONDS, WASHINGTON 1. PROJECT AND SITE CONDITIONS 1.0 INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our subsurface exploration, geologic, and geotechnical engineering study for lot nos. 30, 31, 32, and 36 in the Elm Place Residential Development in Edmonds, Washington. The proposed lot - locations and approximate- locations of -the explorations accomplished for this study are presented on the Site and Exploration Plan, Figure 1. In the event that any changes in the nature, design or location of the structures are planned, the conclu ' sions and recommendations contained in this report should be reviewed and modified or verified as necessary. 1.1 Purpose and Scope The purpose of this study was to provide subsurface data to be utilized in the design and development of the above mentioned project. Our field study included excavat ' ion of 5 exploration pits and performing geologic studies to assess the type, thickness, distribution and physical properties of the subsurface soils. Engineering studies were also conducted to determine the type(s) of suitable foundation(s), allowable bearing pressures, and drainage considerations. This report summarizes our current field work and offers development recommendations based on our present understanding of the project. 1.2 Authoriz;ation Written authorization to proceed with this study was granted by Mr. Marty Spadafora of The Homeland Company on 27 August 1986. Our study was accomplished in general accordance with our scope of work letter dated the same. This report has been prepared for the exclusive use of The Homeland Company, and their agents, for specific application to this project in accordance with generally accepted geotechnical engineering and engineering geology practices. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Our I a - 0 observations, findings, and conclusions are a means to identify and reduce risks. Such risks are inherent to development on or near slopes; it should be understood that slope.stability cannot be guaranteed. 2.0 PROJECT AND SITE DESCRIPTION This report was completed with an understanding that one to two-story single family residences with conventional wood -frame construction will be built on the previously referenced lots. Daylight basements are planned for the houses on lot nos. 30, 31, and 32. No basement is planned on lot no. 36. The properties were situated near the west central portion of the Elio Place Residential Development,. which is located to the southeast of the intersection of Elm Street and 6th Avenue South in Edmonds, Washington. Lots 30, 31, and 32, which are adjacent to each other, are approximately 40 feet by 60 feet and are situated to the southwest of a northwest -southeast trending paved roadway. They are located on a hillside dipping downward to the southwest with an approximate slope of 5H:IV (horizontal :vertical). This slope continues until a small pond, with a diameter on the order of 20 feet, is encountered just beyond the lot property lines. A rockery had been p I aced around the perimeter of the pond. A 1 arge amount of f i 1 1 has been placed on these lots creating a steeper slope near the pond (111:2V) and a generally level area near the center of the lots. Total elevation change across lots 30 and 31 was on the order of 10 to 15 feet. Lot 32 had an elevation change of about 10 feet. Lot -36, which is approximately 50 feet by 60 feet, is situated immediately south of lots 30 through 32 and the pond. This lot was relatively level except near the north toward the pond. At the time of our study, a large fill pile was located on this lot. 3.0 SUBSURFACE EXPLORATION Our field stu dy included excavating a series of 5 exploration pits to gain information about the site. The various types of soi Is as we I I as the depths where the soils or characteristics of the soils changed are indicated on the exploration logs presented in the Appendix. The depths indicated on the logs where soil conditions changed May represent gradational changes between soil types in the field. Our exploration pits were approximately located in the field by taping and pacing from known site features shown on the site plan given to us by The Homeland Company (undated). 2 The conclusions and recomnendat ions presented in this report are based on the exploration pits completed for this study. The number, location, and depth of the explorations were completed within site and proposal constraints. Because of the nature of exploratory work below ground, extrapolation of subsurface conditions between field, explorations is necessary. It should be noted that differing sub surface conditions may sometimes be present due to the random nature of deposition and the alteration of topography by past grading and/or filling. The nature and extent of any variations between the field explorations may not become fully evident until construction. If variations are observed at that time, it may be necessary to reevaluate specific recommendations in this report and make appropriate changes. 3.1 Exploration Pits Our field study included excavating a series of 5 exploration pits with a tractor -mounted backhoe. Each -df the pits penetrated between 10-1/2 and 14- 1/2 feet below present ground surface and permitted direct, visual observation of subsurface conditions. The materials encountered in the exploration pits were studied and classified in the field by a geotechnical engineer or engineering- geologist. Al I exploration pits were-backfil led immediately after examination and logging. Selected samples were then transported to our laboratory for testing as necessary- 4.0 SUBSURFACE CONDITIONS Subsurface conditions on the lots were inferred from field explorations accomplished for this study, visual reconnaissance of the site, and review of app I i cab 1 e geo I og i c 1 i terature. As shown on the field logs, the exploration holes generally encountered fill materials overlying natural deposits. 4.1 Stratigraphy Fill soils (those not naturally placed) were encountered in all exploration pits. The fil 1 ranged in thickness from 7 feet in EP-4 to 13-1/2 feet in EP-3. As noted on the exploration logs, the fil I general ly consisted of loose to medium dense, moist, brown, silty, gravelly, fine to medium sand with organics and large amounts of rubble and debris. These materials probably originated from cut and fi I I operations on this and nearby sites. Placement and compaction of the fil I materials was apparently not documented. The specific nature, extent, and uniformity of such materials 3 are therefore uncertain and unpredictable. During the digging of the exploration pits, I to 2 feet of caving off of the sides of the pits was quite common. Natural soils beneath the fill materials consisted for the most part of medium dense to dense, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium to coarse sands local ly overlain by 1 foot of an old topsoil horizon. These sediments are interpreted to be glacial drift derived from the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation which was in this area approximately 15,000 years ago. 4.2 Hydrology Ground water seepage was encountered in some of our exploration pits at tile time of our field study. The depth of seepage ranged from 10 feet to 14 feet. A] I of the coarse sands and gravels at the base of the exploration - pits were in a wet or saturated condition and probably represent the current site water table. In exploration pi.ts 2 through 5, these sands produced free standing water. The existence of a pond adjacent to the lots is a good indication that the local water table is not deep. Other shallower seepages were located near an old topsoil layer and in the fil 1. These seeps represent water that has temporarily migrated to or been stored at these locations. 4 Ll 11. DESIGN RECOMMENDATIONS 5.0 INTRODUCTIO14 Our exploration indicates that the lots in question (nos. 30, 31, 32, and 36) appear to be suitdble for the proposed residential development. Due to the extensive quantities of uncontrolled fill placed on the lots, the bearing stratum is 8 to 14 feet below existing ground surface. Therefore, a deep seated foundation system will be required for building support. 6.0 SITE PREPARATION The placement and grading of the fil 1 on the lots has generally prepared the lots for residential construction with deep seated foundations. Excavation of the basement areas should be undertaken with care since' the fil I soils are in a loose condition in many areas. Temporary cut slopes should not exceed 1H:IV (horizontal :vertical). Even at this angle, some sloughing should be anticipated. Excavated material stockpiled on site will be suject to erosion and should be protected. 7.0 FOUNDATIONS Due to the presence of 8 to 14 feet of uncontro I I ed f i I I and o 1 d topsoi I in the areas of our exploration pits, it wi I I be necessary to support the buildings on deep seated foundations which bear on the underlying, natural, medium dense to dense, grey, gravelly sands. Several alternative foundation designs may be utilized as discussed below. 7.1 Drilled -in Piers Drilled -in concrete piers will provide suitable foundation support if extended through the fill and embedded a minimum of 6 feet into the underlying natural soils. Piers with a diameter of 14 inches and properly reinforced wi I I be capable of supporting loads on the order of 8 tons per pier. The actua I depth and load carrying capacity of each pier wi I I be adjusted in the f iel d during installation by the Engineering Geologist/Geotechnical Engineer. A a 1 0 The utilization of this foundation system requires that the soils will stay open after auger withdrawal while concrete is being placed. If tile holes will not stay open, it may be necessary to case the holes. In addition, if excess water seeps into the hole during and ifrvilediately following augering, it may be necessary to use a flexible drop chute or concrete pump with hose to the bottom of the hole to assure that the water is adequately displaced. Based on observations during our field exploration, it is our opinion that the augered holes will generally stay open, although a few may need casing. Water seepage near the bottom of the holes may present minor problems especially with the downslope piers. 7.2 Auger Cast -In -Place Piles Cast -in -place concrete piling (Augercast TM) may also be used for foundation support. We recommend that the p I acement of a 11 p i I es be accomp I i shed by a contractor experienced in their installation. The actual total length of each pi le may be adjusted in the f ield based on required capacity and conditions encountered during drilling. Since completion of the pile takes place below ground, the judgement and experience of the Geotechnical Engineer must be used as a basis for determining the required depth and acceptability of each pile. Consequently, use of the presented pile capacities in the design requires that all piles be inspected by a.qualified Geotechnical Engineer or Engineering Geologist from our firm who can interpret and collect the installation data and examine the contractor's operations. Associated Earth Sciences, Inc. acting as the owner's field representative, would determine the required lengths of piles and keep a record of the same. AugercastTM pi 1 es with a minimum diameter of 14 inches wi 11 be capab I e of supporting 15 tons per pile when embedded a minimum of 3 feet into the underlying natural, gravelly sand sediments. Although this' type of installation is usually significantly more expensive than drilled -in piers, it eliminates the need for casing or concrete pumps due to caving or water conditions. 7.3 Rock Trenches The third presented foundation alternative for this site is rock trenches. This system also has the advantage of being relatively low cost and can be performed by the general contractor. Rock trenches have been utilized with 6 favorable success in many soil types around the Puget Sound area. The trenches should have a minimum width of 4 feet and be excavated down to the medium dense to dense, natural soils. Because of the potential for caving, the actual trench width may be greater than specified. It would be appropriate to backfill the trenches as the excavation proceeds to minimize caving. The use of a larger, track -mounted backhoe with the teeth covered will greatly speed trench excavation over the use of a conventional, rubber - tired backhoe. To determine when suitable bearing has been achieved and to verify proper rock placement, the Geotechnical Engineer/Engineering Geologist must be present on a full-time basis during footing trench excavation and ba—ckfil—l. A pump may be required to control seepage so that the bearing level can be visually determined. After the bearing stratum has been reached, the trench may be backfil led. We recommend the use of 1 to 2 inch size, crushed ro'ck for bdckf * ill. The crushed rock must be tamped -into place to achieve a tightly -packed mass; this may be done with either a "Hoepac" type compactor mounted on the backhoe or with the bucket of the backhoe itself. Staging areas should be maintained so that the rock is not contaminated by mud prior to placement in the trench. Equipment access to trench locations should also be maintained. Spread footings may be used for building support when founded on rock trenches properly constructed and bearing on th*e lower sand*s. Masonry fireplaces are settlement sensitive and should be supported by the lower sands as we] 1. . Footings which bear on approved rock trenches may be designed for an allowable bearing pressure of 2,000 psf including both dead and live loads. Perimeter footings should be buried at least 18 inches into the surrounding soil for frost protection. Interior foot'ings need only extend 12 inches below adjacent grade. However, a 11 footings or rock trenches must penetrate to the prescribed bearing. stratum and no footing should be founded in or above loose, organic, or existing fi I I soi is. In addition, al I footings should have a minimum width of 14 inches. Al 1 of the above given design loads may be increased by one-third for short term wind or seismic loading. Anticipated settleme ' nt of footings founded on pile or pier foundations should be less than 1 inch. For footings founded on rock trenches, the settlement should be on the order of 112 inch. However, disturbed material not removed from footing trenches prior to concrete placement could result in increased settlements. 7 0 L.] 8.0 FLOOR SUPPORT S I ab- on -grade f I oors are not recommended for these I ots due to potent i a I settlement problems associated with the extensive thickness and variability of the fill soils. Crawl space type construction with interna I footings founded on p i I es, p iers or rock trenches wi I I minimi ze prob I ems assoc iated with the sites and should be the preferred construction method. The soi I below the f loor system should be covered with a vapor barrier to reduce potential dampness. Adequate ventilation must be provided to prevent the buildup of methane gas below the structures. 9.0 PASSIVE RESISTANCE AND FRICTION FACTORS FOR GRADE BEAMS To obtain passive resistance against lateral translation, the grade beams must be backfil led with structural fill compacted to 95 percent of the Modified Proctor Maximum Density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. If grade beams are placed on grade and then backfilled, the top of the backfill must be horizontal and extend outward from the beam for a minimum lateral distance equal to three times the height of the backfill, before tapering down to grade. With backfill placed as discussed, beams may be des . igned for passive resistance against lateral translation using an equivalent fluid equal to 250 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). This value includes a factor of safety equal to 3 in order to minimize the amount of movement necessary to generate passive resistance. The friction coefficient for grade beams will be minimal on the organic fill. 10.0 LATERAL WALL PRESSURES All backfill behindwalls or around foundation units should be placed as per our recommendations for structural fill and as described in this section of the report. Backfil led walls which are free toyield laterallyat leastO.1 percent of their height, may be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Fully restrained rigid (basement- type) walls which cannot yield should be designed —for an equivalent fluid of 50 pcf. The lateral pressures presented above are based on the conditions of a uniform, horizontal backfill consisting of free -draining sand and gravel, compacted to 90 percent of maximum density using ASTM:D 1557 as the standard. A higher degree of compaction is not recommended as this wi I I 8 0 � 0 increase the pressure acting on the wal I. Surcharges from adjacent footings, heavy construction equipment, vehicles or sloping ground must be added to the above values. Perimeter footing drains should be provided for a] I retaining wal Is as discussed under Section 11.0, Drainage Considerations. If the onsite soils are used for backfill, an equivalent fluid equal to 54 pcf should be used for the yielding condition. Since the wal I wil I be restrained prior to backfil I ing, it should be designed for an equivalent f luid equal to 72 pcf where onsite soil wil I be used for backfil 1. These values do not include hydrostatic pressures. Because onsite fill materials are not free-dr,aining, it is imperative that proper drainage be provided so that hydrostatic pressures do not develop against the wal 1. This wi I I involve installation of a blanket drain using imported gravel ful I -height against the wal Is. If a structure is below the water table, it must be designed for hydrostatic uplift and lateral pressures as well as soil pressures. In this case, restrained wal Is should be designed using an equivalent fluid equal to 9.0 pcf to account for soil and water pressures. 11.0 DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS Al I retaining and footing wal Is should be provided with a drain at the footing elevation (unless supported on rock trenches). Rock trenches may be used as footing drains if they daylight or can drain by gravity away from the building. Drain - s should consist of perforated pipe enclosed in a pea gravel, sand -free trench. They *should be constructed with sufficient gradient to allow gravity discharge away from the building. Roof and surface runoff should not discharge into the footing drain system but should be handled by a separate tightline drain. In planning, exterior grades adjacent to wal Is should be sloped downward away from the structure to achieve surface drainage. We are available to provide geotechnical engineering and monitoring services during construction. The integrity of the foundation depends on proper site preparation and construction procedures, and engineering decisions may have to be made in the field in the event that localized variations in subsurface conditions become apparent. Thank you for this opportunity to be of service. We trust our findings, conclusions and recommendat ions will be helpful in the successful completion V1 0 - 0 of your project. Should you have any questions or require further assistance, please feel free to contact us. Sincerely, ASSOCIATED EARTH SCIENCES, INC. Gdry A . 4lowers, P.G. Principal Gary T.(/Lobdell, P.E., P.G. Principal GAF/jaw 8608-24A of'- -T. L 0 ONAL 10 L -A ,Z-1- 141 3 T 1< /0 E P- 5 YPIOI-'g PI-15 1 20 Pond Sca le 50 ER I E P.- 2 3Z ER 9 Ep- -56 L/ 700 Figure 1: Site and'Exploration Plan Elm Place Lots 30, 31, 32, and 36 Edmonds, Washington ABSOCIATEO EARTH GCIL=NCL=G8 INC 8608-24 — lAugust 1986 NUMBER EP- I EXPLORATION PIT LOGS sEnlUFNT nFoad-uioTu-%u Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, gravelly-, -S1 1EY sand with logs and bui Iding debris. (-Fill Loose, moist, light brown, gravelly, medium sand, with organic debris. (Fill) Note: Medium caving from 0 to 7 feet. No seepage. "_jMed_3_`um dense to dense, wet to saturated, gray, gravelly, medium to.coarse.sand. B011 000 _L_ - NUMBER EP-2 IM 11 1 acg%tlacarr � Pri 1 ca Loose to medium dense, moist, dark brown, silty, gravelly sand, with logs and building debris. ::::x-%-x� (Fill) Fill becomes light brown 5 X Loose, moist, light brown, gravelly, medium sand, with logs -and other wood debris. -(Fill) Peat layer from 11 2 to Ill feet. Medium caving from 2 to 10 feet. -.-;'-:,Medium dense to dense, wet to saturated, gray, gr�'velly, medium to coarse sand. B011 Note: medium seepage at 14 feet. Water contains high amounts of silt. Elm Place, Lots 30, 31, 32 ar.L" 36, for th"e Homeland Company', Edmonds, Washington. 8608-24 lAugust 1986 0 NUMBER 0--r._ 5 10 15 EXPLORATION PIT LOGS EP-3 aCr%jam Loose to.medium dense, moist, dark and light brown, silty, gravelly sand, with logs and brick material. (Fill) Peat layer from 122' to 13 feet. Note: Minor caving from 2 to 11 feet. Minor seepage at 11 feet and 13 feet. NUMBER EP-4 11 ense, saturated, gray, gravelly, medium to B011 Medium dense, moist, dark brown, silty, gravelly sand, with logs. (Fill) at wood hark. Medium dense...to dense, saturated, gray, gravell coarse sand. B011 Note: Very minor seepage at base of hole. Minor caving from 1 to 8 feet. Elm Place, Lots 30, 31, 3-2 and 36, for the Homeland Company, Edmonds, Washington. V. A�Z-. 8608-24 jAugust 1986 EXPLORATION PIT LOGS NUMBER EP-5 0 SEDIMENT DESCRIPTION &1nT=0 1; 10 15 Loose, damp, light brown, silty, g ravelly sand, w1th wood debris and a tire. (Fill) S r i f F damp. gray - Loose to medium dense, light brown, silty, ........ gravelly sand, with wood debris. (Fill) edium dense to dense, wet to saturated, k gray, gravelly, medium to coarse sand. BOH Note: Heavy seepage at 10 feet. Minor c*iiV'in.g- from 10 to 12 feet. NUMBER 1 I Elm Place, Lots 30,31,32 and 36� for the Homeland Company, Edmonds, Washington. 8608-24 August 1 1 1986 .zd- 00 C) CITY of EDI*NDS STREET FILEODE SEWER PERMIT For Inspection Call 771-3202 PERMIT NO. 07939 Address of Construction: / / �7 Property Legal Description _(_LnclAde all easements): I, - a_-2 Owner and/or Builder: Contractor & License No: Aw Single Family Residence Ll_� EDMONDS-'--- Mul ti-Family (No. of Units TREA I MENT PLANT-] Commercial (No. of fixture Units Invasion into City Right -of -Way: No Ae!!�� Yes (If Yes, Right -of -Way Construction Permit required. Call One -Call -Center (1-800-424-5555) before any excavation.) Cross other Private Property: No t_� Yes (If Yes, easement required, attach legal description and county easement number.) PLEASE I AD THE ITEMS LISTED ON THE BACK ,Fr,F_iqf.0 t, 3 0 Aq�a /o / /—s e 04 R-P/ I certify that I have read and shall comply DAe with the items listed on the back. ?08LIC %ORKS Permit Fee: Trunk Charge: Assessment Fee: Partial Inspection: Issued By: Date Issued: Receipt No.': Comments Final Inspection Approved: Date Initial Rejected: Reason PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE --Ya—te Initial 75"te Initial Wh.ite Copy - File Green Copy - Inspector Buff Copy - Applicant The City of Edmonds Side Sewer Drawing EASEMENT NO . ............. ------------------------------ I NEW CONSTRUCTION Z" REPAIRS F-1 LID NO . .................. . ASMT. NO - --------- -------- OWNER-------------------------------------- ---------------- ---------------------------------------- CONTRACTOR --- T -------- W --- ---------- ( --- 2 --- ---------------------------------- PERMIT NO. JOB ADDRESS --Vil ---------- R-lrn, I ----- 7V ----------------------------- 0 40 PWW-0001-11/75 (REV.11/78) LEGAL DESCRIPTION: LOT NO. --SA ------------------------- BLOCK NO - ------------------------------------ M[VtONDS 1771Z E ATPI -EINT'- FUA NT NAE ADDITION ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- - --------------------------------------- 7. I - 14' Approved: DATE ...... By ... c V-:� ........ EET FILE a I W K13 All N LN fill �ju I February 25, 1992 TO: Dick Mumma, Building Official FROM Ed Somers*'Ssociate City Planner SUBJECT: Building Permit for H. W. Barkaloo 617 Elm Place. Plan Check #474 The Planning Division has reviewed the building permit for a deck at 617 Elm Place, Plan Check #474. The proposed deck extends over a private property line within the Elm Place Planned Residential Development (PRD) onto a common space , and the proposal would require a modification of the property lines that would need Council approval similar to the decision process of the original PRD. After approval of the modification of the lot lines by the Council and recording of the modified lot lines, the deck would also need Architectural Design Board (ADB) approval. I have discussed this matter with Mr. Barkaloo, and have informed him that I could not schedule ADB approval of the deck until the lot lines were revised. I cannot approve the plans as submitted, and the Planning Division has not received an application to modify the lot lines. I therefore recommend that building permit Plan Check #474 be denied. Please contact me at extension 330 if you have any questions about this matter. 40 Architectural Committee Activity Sept.21, 1991 The Board submitted a request to the Architectural Committee to review the proposed cover and fence for the retention pond behind Lots 30, 3 1, & 36, , with the deck and fence extending behind Lot 31, to determine if it conforms to the architectural style of the complex. The purpose is to improve the appearance of the common gr . 6und in this area. The committee reviewed the plans and looked at the area. The fence to replace the cyclone fence will look the same as the perimeter fence. The cover over t49 pond and the deck will look the same as the other wood decks in the complex. All wIff �Ve painted the same cream -color. There is a sewer manhole in the area behind Lot 31 which will be covered by the deck. A portion of the deck over this manhole will have to have a section removable for access. With these requirements being met, the Committee feels it will match and improve the appearance of the complex. The committee recommends this request to the Board. End of report PRM= REVIEW MY -MIST .4,0000,w 61-;z- "00,c 44 Pfn= ADDRFSS: 'ATION RFjMIPT DATE: I Reviewed by: (initial/date) CCP74ERM PLANNING WrR/SWR STRELT ENC-1,MG FIRE BUILDING 117111111 FAMILY/MJLTrPLE/CWK=IAL (Circle One) -y J,S C)mcm - Planning T7-7 -77777 7 7 7 7 7 —77 7 7 7 7 —77 -7 -7 -777 1ANCE/SF.Tf1ACX AW. ,10NAL USE PERMIT 2 7-777-77777 )QUIRDOM CHWKED 11177TFff 771[11/777/77777 ZCNING REQUIREMEM 4 X00MT. FEATURES 5 srzpr & vimm-r-, ACCESS 7T/77T/7 //////// 6 777Url-11 IT71-1-117 PLAN (On Site) "-742,o!§Z 57777/7777 117111111 FILF ///////// 7777-7/T777777-7-7/7 DESCRjpTj(V VFRIFICATION ///////// ///////// //////// 1 9 177TRTff -'7AIM/DFDTCATIONS X9 10 /77777777 ;-Tn - PUBLIC/PRIVATE .ATE SrWER CCM4BC7r.10N IF NO LID#6--rA 77TIT ////// 77TTTT77T ///////// TT77777 ///////// 717777T //////// I 1.2 ////// --777777777 - ;uRDTVISTCN REQUIROAENM 13 77777T771111111 11177777- ,OF-WAY CONSTRUCTION PERMIT PFf-n ////// ///////// ///////// 1 14 7-77-7-77--777777777777 mu) M-R P(JBT,IC IMPROVEMM's -TR171111 15 C(MITTONS & GROUND 77T77-1 FIEFI) CII@CKL1) ////// ///////// 1G T/7-777 7 / 7 7 7 7 / 7 7 777TR77T PAVING REQUTRM, ////// ///////// ///////// 17 111T11 T 1111TI 27 ND MYPPER IUX)OTRED 18 77 7 -71 -ITF77TIT ,LK RFX-)UIRED ///////// 19 7777TT177 -T 777T7 R 7 7 V.r FOR DRIVEWAY REQD ///////// N\\� 20 NAME SIGN REQD 21 T177-17 /7/////// -17771-FITI- 7 TTF1 7 TT17 SIGNING REOD 111117 -177777TI7-7T777TFIT .22 TWER AVAIIARILMI ////// ///////// ///////// 23 -17Trlrl' -I Tf ITTR 14G WPER MATN SIZE 47-)-) 24 - 7-77777 11111171T 7T/-/-//T[/-/ W3701 SIZE ////// ///////// 25 T/Tf/7- T177777T 77777TI-ITI .2 LTNF SIZE //////// 26 717171111 T7777777T7717777T77TIT= - rl, RM_ JTRED ///////// ///////// //////// 27 T77-77T 171TIT17T 7 TR TI 7 7 TF1 T1 TTTR yr SIZE EXISTING //////// 28 1111111T71171TI-11b"I COWCTION rNSPWrICN REM //////// 29 T777-77 77/////// 177-- 777-7-7-777 MZM CIMCE 30 �RBOD LIM CHARGE R320 SPRINKLER 7777TR7 7777T/T/7 31 CLM 32 nui EXISTING 1111111111111711 77777T/7T 33 34 777117111 fr REM 35 777777TI7 777-777T/7 36 T/�77//// BASIN REOD 37 IT117-1 / 77 TR ,_ATIM CN SITE PLAN ///////// ///////// 38 )ER MUMCE MAINFAIN 77/////// 2 OPIN RUNOFF ///////// 39 77 T/T/7 T ///////// 40 M BY: PLANNING MGR. ENGINMRING MGR. PUBLle WRKS MGR.