Loading...
9208 OLYMPIC VIEW DR.PDFiiiiiiiiiiiiii 12669 9208 OLYMPIC VIEW DR a6 6 N/ 106 1104 � � t `.i,.�m111111i11 _..,,�nnllllill V p y SCE t� D U E C 1 2 1997 PERMIT COUNTF1 Ir D,47mAl P67N/ -- -�;dfi'q--�-q�---SAP-P-RO-I�PD-O--Y-PL-Ai�iVI-- v L t /4" RAKE PER FT. FROM GROUND LEVEL I ,r, 0V21, 1998 17: 15 4254812510 NEL'30N-c,nU11RETTE PAGE 02 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FIELD REPORT CONSL'LTntiG GCOTEC.HNICAL ENG;NEERS. 6:OL0GI5T5 QNO ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Project: /a�,t cor S�Atatr T File No. ;7525' 17311-135th Avenue NE, A•500 L f6 Woodinville. WA 98072 Owner: Date: Fax ( 25) 486 2510 5) 337 1669 t: Ucation: c ?L'h7 � � �4/" k�b'RepU1Ct No. Weather; �L.rF'c�sr- _ j- Page: of Purpose of Visit:%r, ! S -' it S By: _ C��L I%%S /Tf�O �6�E= �lZl�—,%Zi 41 /`„' ri/�. /;•�; ( v'� � i- it/'•` F° - - .12 ca _�o f. of �--r/ <;:,rrsrr�� �. t.a.�t" ��G ��,vD ��l , �� �X'i/.•�vl�y r,�'od/�c-iJ I,zn 7°7�f ous s/£ fYf o,s rid / T' / .G�/c�a ✓ T� ;Lm7dr So/� l a �/J T G'.`rC � < f..✓c-£ S �? <A LJ�'% < < !' Gf - , So `�^�lvx/rr.s.r`, frf5 fCeF 7' � U7fi.yr C� <• '�Cfil.�/ P' !S r 4 ��iOF �N� � t�/J T/.JG rc,�,.,�. - 7'rlL� � ,- ;c"� �r�Yli i �F �'Ft•/Q't��ys / 5/%+% X£. _ ice✓( F-rJ'I�S / ./ _ - SdIG S T/ft- 3 /t c 70 r ,'e0U6N. _ r✓ (...if Oh''�F!✓ r 7 ,,!� / .uf .sr . � ',p q w /i �-.�n,j G'.✓Ccu�lO')fC .�- �' a:l'fr. � r pow �' t / Gi � • � ,. . r �-' " /yt! Y ` �'T" P` r<'' �',.r i � 5 ft7 / �' / /Fi• � O ` f"�/2G r/Q9 c %��F G��C: JC% C.s! �w_—tx^-;....._ r l.�T.s 'r 'L6 Attachments: Signed: Distribution: i31 / 241 /I1998 17: 16 4254812510 NELSON-COI_IVRETTE PAGE 03 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENG+NCF.RS, GEOtO 1!ST5 a:vD E.Nl4RONM1IF1VT4L SCIF.NT15T5 17311.135th Avenue NE. A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) 337.1669 Fax (425) 481-2510 Project: Owner:_ Location. Weather: Purpose of Visit: FIELD REPORT file No. ,7 Date: Report No. Page: 2 of By: FoV.Uzl!!! TirU Saes riyovz,� is r�y�►"i1 .��•-�l� ��'f T _� o7y iJ . CX D C_T- UC. CJA/ rc _42 1 ✓V igned Attachments: Distribution: 17:16 4254812510 NELSON-COUVRETTE PAGE 04 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. OTECHN!CAL ENGMEERS, GE0tC)G1,1;TS ANO EWIRONAIENr4( SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486.1669 * (425) 337.1669 rax (425) 481-2510 Project: Lar- Owner: FIELD REPORT File No. 171!icy5v Date: 4 Ze— —al- td- Location: 7 6-Ei-f,',s� p ;4 ZZ4V M Report No. Weather: Page: of Pill -pose Of Visit: L BY: d5c- ry B fj-pi,yz, x'az,_.S 'Fe" [.or 41 X /Ir e Z?x'- 0 �G'Z s'-ay-C bidye .,4 L? f rz-z r- zl� S E3" 94 V f-- L-,zl -1/ ?-"024fl) -i& Za Z�eg S Ce�4, Sf-;rgsl�cgr t',z NC/-7 d 2'G, e- e e.(,17 S ILI F -f /?"C' �L.� f7 '�Y/7S(�W&'fv re Ld 4. C'O 7— /J 7�2 7:#,lr -,VVA- IAl Ll� ;Cei 7- Ma 7'#' S 7-jVf e2je&�fszl cNq'-: za CdZC 7/?Sf<f/C-n Fftr e�;'I- /401-L. 7f 0 /r; 4- •O/Y - ))qr UZ-2-L"' "'S A�f f 7 61 /-45 1.Vr-tez-yf r Ay liep C!KU -V'f AE 11 41 Cil' T-Y i Z— Fle') CF 4 �1-4-rfV 6S its Y 21q'92,e 'y ig C ry 70 Zkv*�-S�-zs�' s ZZ 7'0 Attachments: Signed: Distribution: WELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • (425) 337-1669 Fax (425) 481-2510 Project: FGv)r tar SHcK7 Owner: FIELD REPORT File No. /760M Date: 4L2o%L Location: z�DrTe,vo 9?°b VA 112od-R, Report No. Weather: 00FIC64-s r g/.3-, Page: _�of- Purpose of Visit: C^onJ.S i�- c)r rc o,,.l 41e,eI170< By: ,22i•4 GVQ VIS/Tfr:) TIV2 S/lr rwy,9•i J-r Ti/;;:' /_F. iO y(/ 9 c uilT s' 13 9f1(t'!1Yh So ic. c Fo,' C o r -'/ /Y r fit`/f _c Ire, rii t Pr. oT-fer t'C cJj t c ! n- yN F �o�I/S Ti?� cTia ✓ a� fl tiiL/Fc f /ZrC S/D1;.dCF R£LOIJ .Sze"C'E' %a 2741E SAS T li%F 1,119yr T4/dT 7H £ (LY Or- Nits S 2' T PgAC({ /C� �yrn'P '+� urr / No�✓c�pR t✓ £ 94 ✓L t/or bfF �/ �,C'r✓i0£�� ✓pry THE ��il.d f Oi ' ,ff'Ft/F!�� rrONS fG2 ff7-f iC,t auIf2 r f,iC c�TS �i10�� 7 /l e- 701 oW t41nl Lc%G .9� s o A4,! c% '�fio7 CDT .9it�c/ �!./ t= v Fig t7 f'sl rCJT C f/ T 7/`/ J 1"A TGt:- V 22F 012,L21v22 7#2 s' /rg. IlAy 'RFr�-/ F�cisdf!rfy to H19 7- W FR'. h. fe-i.fe6 � L✓f/s T/.yr 1='e �j/� �/( ?�/� f�► s T S //� f ��� TN FYl�c ;� �.n ; r/y J•�<Fpc; rn Y-f/F 1Y-)£ oRS4,*41En 4 -aTAr t i•UT �, or' L'5 F9 97- Ta 7-11f 6-3' rt FT 719- Sd OD1 TH s �t/t>N jy6/ rJ •'c1T- r'�, : rJ.ri�- t o� .Q Foo>- �tr Bf"VC11 �. /b11Fe /L3 AOa7 V'��"ricAt rrrr ��cF. Ti/� srdri/�v�rr e'dvo�'VG1 eF TNcS eG r- zJf 06stiv£n To !3L oT IAIE D/f // f l7/'��/I t� 7 r� Ff f T Clef T/1 £ E t'f.� e'-F T: r PI (/.dD F.<<U/.df M9T�.</Ac rc�/SisTtJ Of• 410c t c/ Y/ d£ 70 "rf.1/✓..•. L1 -VO 6- Se., r- i°L/n j6 C A1,VT(r/£ OLVT,JAJH IF'cfFri�.•.rrr C.:�.,..J] . SFF�i'/� /•- NS n/1,SC,<c�t// /,v Tf/i eOtc14'e f L/AGL,,frfJ 711E QYI�cS £y Fii /ii�6 SO/CS l3 t/ i'De,yrr� G--" r// ' T.Mr l /A�+f�fif Srrre !'G� flfF��yi.dc �fct.�F/�T,r i'i 'rc�l�'r" 1//y Sa/t L.��,<' /�'.t�fr/',- %Q /.•CNf_t ,,`7.t,,U (.�.�rr�°r //'!Tf%�i�''�, `eiy /c., �!.15. .r!tf'�/; /..., l'�,'.,d,!t ";rn t� •e:::�✓.:� -'111 t^l:/' :"//T/irr.*� 1'./S/ iXYcSin s'cl/t.� J'!c't,r.�� P� S'c IT,�/T�s yCJ _.Puff:, r• r' ' ��f'l�/( .+�,! r J.r7v/f.%,-- ,'� SC�(h �<,e?+tG%-`= ...;,..,.. (...: c :,.�,,�� P�,iT- �i�;.S!` •r }, Gi.�r" .Cf.•C��a�: •rc..�^ 7'i�.•17 /1, c/l/ Cc•%n TF;�' !c^� f ,yF1/ / ?i' T//.S? .(`•''� ; a ; %r/ c' > �- /��v �' ��y ; U ,�i��/ci;' ? n Attachments: -�' _r Signed: Distribution: • NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue.NE, A-500 Project: Woodinville, WA 98072 Owner:_ (425) 486-1669 - (425) 337-1669 Fax (425) 481-2510 Location: Weather: Purpose of Visit: FIELD REPORT File No. Z;760f6 Date: 2OA% Report No. Z' Page: Z of3— By: IDA4 /0 lX Pe,,f T i aV- �r)GiC° /i /_d% SUS%!' LEE r" FY/) 7`f, ! T" ZErr SYE646Y C:z z—dw25 /C. L /t'OK T/a NS CJrr' Ty f.. 6t�r^�?d�??/0t,1 : P � c..,/r/,i,L/ �� � � . r ��. y/!; a��, SLOB'. 4-011n!-yef .V. f-i7 o TO ZEE !:ng•,� ;.;::-,.-r..yc17 749 if V,4 t, (/4 )" f CON rr T IVI l L"If Xf tip ox' rl.) %F/NIc.c/ r e _f F.t'f'y ?o 1 i.�)!;'r seve.. THi -Y/S7Z- ,yC TO I/1f/Ff/F .J ?;A�F t!iJ,O� nF r.�iF ,' UT..i;'!•F`, !e� � /71 dP- /.T "i F1e £ 7;!i° -7- T 11 !'�f T/-*./� S��a �'F/S ,ter _�'o-%� r cif/r' o� �•4i�v< r P117 %O TNV r re/d '-�% 241 Cy7S. /�o��i ria.t/r Cuo/lKEft .S.sFE7r� /S F 41 /' 0( mot/ DA n 011E T*r e'y 7' Attachments: Signe Distribution: .01 /31�,11 998 17: 16 4254812510 NELSON- COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. COMIUATMO GGOTICHNICAL EV,-,iNEFR5, GEOLOCIFTS -vo ENIWRONAIENTAI, ',30ENTISTS 17311.135th Avenue NE, A-500 Project' Woodinville, WA 98072 Owner: (425) 485-1669 # (425) 337.1669 Fax (425) 481-2510 Location. Weather: Purpose of Visit: NELSON-COUVRETTE PAGE 05 FIELD REPORT File No. z7c'04 Date, //'? a A Report No. Page: By: i-Y I'? C tG e'R �, -i- T f a n 7 c-rGiV42,4J 70 7 7 L ---2-z2.A T' 7,141a 7-14 Attachments: Distribution: PROJECT REVIEW CHECKLIST PROJECT NAME-: PROJECT ADDRESS: WXI 1 7 PLAN CHECK #: RECEIPT DATE: Setbacks/Variance/Setback Adjustment Conditional Use Permit AD8 Requirements Other Zoning Requirements ...... .... ........... Underground Wiring Required Lot Slope 15% SEPA Environmental Checklist/Hydraulics Permit Tree Cutting Plan M. .X. ................ m, Plat/Subdivision Requirements _'5 ept, ']'� .......... Legal Description Verification Quit Claim/Street Dedications Easements - Public/Private i.51 Engineering Storm Drain Review Fee Engineering 2.2 Inspection Fee . ..... Drainage Plan (On -Site) lll.�,;&112159 . ..... . ..... - -:iri---- Setback - To of Bank, Stream, Water Courses Setback - Storm Drain Line Open Ditch - Existing . . . . . . . . . . . . Culvert Required <19 Culvert Size . Shoulder Drainage/Shale Open Runoff Catch Basin Required Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access 0- ---------- Sidewalk Required . . . . . . . . . . Curb & Gutter Required Curb Cut For Driveway Required ...... XX Street Paving Required Right -Of -Way Construction Permit Reg Street Name Sign Required -------------- Other Signing Required U 65, . . . . . . . . . . . Bond Required For Public Improvements K)C> FEMA Map Check/Water Table Side Sewer Availability Calculate Sewer Connection Fee If No LID # Create Street File ...... ......... . . . . . . . Existing Water Main Size Water Meter Size /V/I* Service Line Size Water Meter Charge Required Hydrant Required Hydrant Size Existing Fire Line Charge Required - Sprinkler Street Cut )V14 Miscellaneous Reviewed By: FIRE PLANNING ENGINEERING PUB IC WORKS OCR u PUBLIC WORKS DEN O ID 00 V 01 L" A W' N N O w co D D e v v m c-) m m c-) m a m m a mm A O W tD W co W V W 01 W (71 W A W W W N W 1-+ W O N t0 N W N V N ON N VI N A N W N N N ►-� m I y E (n m 3 m 3 W D N v . v m m D m C v N m 0 Gp z � m c") m �. v 1 . � , I m n 0 0 O n "of /Of 9208,OVD r-r-q ( -OV4.00 Iv 9 7 m uj,---> RECEIVED DEC 1 6 1997 loo %.. N. PERMIT COUNTER pgovfo a4tol s 040 Cuplcis AS NOTED h1ozese 7 -72:57Am- 'Y9d itaL NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • Fax 481-2510 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 November 24, 1997 lop City of Edmonds �. Planning Department 250 — 5th Avenue . Edmonds, Washington 98020 Supplemental Letter Four Lot Short Plat Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 178096 R k Dear Sirs: This is. a supplemental letter to our preliminary geological investigation letter for this site, dated July 11, 1996 (NCA File No 178096). The purpose of this letter is to clarify our use of the term "buffer zone" in the Building Setback subsection of our report. We have been requested to provide this clarification by Jeff Vehrs of the Emerald Coast Group. In our report, we recommended a minimum building setback of 10 feet for structures on Lots 3 and 4, to establish a "buffer zone" between dwelling areas and the slope margin. We did not intend the word "buffer" to be used as referenced and defined by the City of Edmonds in their Development Code. We understand that these definitions were provided in the new code which was enacted after our report was prepared: The City of Edmonds defines "buffer" as the area immediately next to and part of a steep slope. The buffer is intended to protect the stability of the slope. A 15-foot setback is required from the edge of the buffer. The topographic map provided corresponds with our field measurements taken at the time of our explorations. The topographic map of the steep slope area shows that the slope the maximum slope Supplemental Letter Edmonds Short Plat November 24'. 1997 NCA File No. 178096 Page 2 inclination is about 58 percent for a total height of 8 to 10 feet. The portion of the slope with an average slope above 40 percent is less than 20 feet in vertical height. Therefore, this slope does not qualify as a steep slope hazard area under the City of Edmonds Code. It is our opinion that a building setback of 10 feet from the toe of the slope is appropriate. This allows .for maintenance of the area in the event a slough event occurs. The. term "buffer" used in, our. original report was not intended to be used as defined in the code, but was intended to be used as a setback of the structure from the toe of the slope. In the event that the steep slope hazard is still applied, it is our `opinion that moving the buffer onto the slope and having the standard building setback start at the toe of the slope would be appropriate. We trust this letter provides you with the information you requested and appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this letter, do not hesitate'to call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Charles. P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer i LMH:CPC:nt ' Three Copies Submitted NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. . 0 CDEN °t c s - 19 UI�PHY 9� LIEP.L.L.C. ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2100 Westlake Center Tower - 1601 Fifth Avenue - Seattle, WA 98101-1686 - (206) 447-7000 - Fax (206) 447-0215 W. Scott Snyder December 8, 1997 Jeffrey Vehrs 9216 183rd Place S.W. Edmonds, WA 98020 Re: Couvrette Report Dear Mr. Vehrs: At the request of the Planning Department and your client, I reviewed issues relating to the development of Lot 4 of a short plat of property developed by Mark Cunningham. Meg Gruwell, the planner overseeing the recent application review by your client has also provided me with the written findings from the subdivision process as well as a report issued by the geotech for subdivision 5-95-202. At issue is whether or not a previously identified steep slope in the subdivision process and the building permit process was properly classified. An initial determination was made by the staff that these were steep slope environments. The geotech is right -- the definitions measure the total rise between the toe and top of slope as well as that portion of the slope which is at or greater than 40%. What his letter does not address is the fact that there are two, not just one, benches or steps on the slope. If your clients wish to pursue an appeal of the initial staff determination, which classified this area as a steep slope environment, they may file an appeal to the City's Bearing Examiner pursuant to Section 20.105.030, a copy of which is attached for your client's reference. They could submit the material from the third party geotech as a part of the hearing process. In that case, I will suggest to the City that they employ a geotech to advise the City- 'Benching" or series of small slumps on a hillside are an attribute of both steep slope environments and landslide hazard areas. A decision about how to measure the slope from toe to top and how that definition should be applied in situations where benching occurs are important issues of general application in both critical.areas and the building permit process. Your clients therefore at this point has two options. They may proceed with the building permit process by setting back 15 feet from the toe of the slope - the buffer being included on the slope Wenatchee Office - Riverfront Center - 1 Fifth Street - Suite 200 - Wenatchee, WA 98807 - (509) 662-1954 - Fax (509) 663-1553 Jeffrey Vehrs December 8, 1997 Page 2 'X , . -- or they may appeal the staffs determination that this is a steep slope environment in order to utilize the ten -foot setback recommended by the geotech. Good luck to your clients in the development process. If I can provide any further information regarding their options in resolving this problem, please let me know. Again, Ms. Gruwell and the building official will remain their primary staff contacts. Very truly yours, QG])-PN MURPHY WALLACE, P.L.L.C. ♦� • VW4{. V1�YV� WSS/gjz cc: Meg Gruwell W SS 180815.1 UF0006.9000001B0006. 20.105.030 20.105.030 Appeal of staff decision. A. Who May Appeal. Persons entitled to appeal are: 1. The applicant; or 2. Anyone who has submitted a written document to the city of Edmonds concerning the application prior to issuance of the staff decision; or 3. Anyone within 300 feet of the prop- erty which is the subject of the application, or who can demonstrate an interest in the action. B. 'Department Action. The community ser- vices department shall promptly: 1. Send a copy of the appeal to the project applicant if the person appealing is not the applicant. 2. Give notice of the hearing as speci- fied in Chapter 20.91 ECDC. 3. Send a copy of the notice of hearing to the person appealing. 4. Provide a copy of the staff report and decision, minutes of the hearing held on the decision, a response to the appeal, and other relevant documents, to the hearing examiner. The project applicant, person appealing and other interested parties shall be notified in writing that the materials are on file and may be reviewed and/or copied at the expense of the person wishing the copies. C. Public Hearing. The hearing examiner shall hold a public hearing on the appeal in the manner provided in Chapter 20.91 ECDC. The hearing examiner shall base the decision on the appeal on the same criteria and findings as set forth in this code for the original decision. D. Appeal of Hearing Examiner Decision. The decision of the hearing examiner on appeals of staff decisions on project permit applications shall be final and shall not be appealable to the city council. Hearing exam- iner decisions on appeals of staff decisions that do not involve project permit applications shall be appealable to the city council pursuant to the process specified in ECDC 20.105.040. [Ord. 3112 § 32, 1996; Ord. 2584 § 1, 1986]. 20.105.040 Appeal of hearing examiner action. A. Who May Appeal. Persons entitled to appeal are: 1. The applicant; or 2. Anyone who has submitted, a written document to the city of Edmonds concerning the application prior to or at the hearing identi- fied in ECDC 20.100.010; or . 3. Anyone testifying on the application at the hearing identified in ECDC 20.100.010. B. Department Action. The community ser- vices department shall promptly: 1. Send a copy of the appeal to the hear- ing examiner and to the applicant if the person appealing is not the applicant. 2. Send a copy of the appeal to the city clerk, along with copies of reports, hearing minutes and any other relevant material that the hearing examiner has not already sent to the council as part of his or her decision. C. City Clerk Action. After receiving notice of an appeal of a hearing examiner action, the city clerk shall promptly: 1. Set the meeting on the appeal on a city council agenda for a date that is within 30 days of the date the appeal was filed. 2. Give notice of the meeting as speci- fied for public hearings in Chapter 20.91 ECDC. 3. Send a notice of the hearing to the person appealing. D. City Council Review. 1. The council shall consider the appeal, including review of the record, in a closed record appeal. The parties to the appeal may submit timely written statements or argu- ments. 2. The council shall review the proposal using the same criteria and findings set forth in this code for the original decision. 3. The council shall state its findings and conclusions regarding the appeal. The council may take either of the following actions: a. Affirm, modify or reverse the action of the hearing examiner; or C (Revised 12/96) 20-100.2 lnc.189v CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 98020 • (425) 771-0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning • Building • Engineering April 12, 1999 Mike Stevens 9208 Olympic View Drive Edmonds, WA 98026 RE: Tree Removal Request Dear Mr. Stevens, The Planning Department has received a letter from Wm. James Stark dated April 9, 1999 regarding the removal of 4 Big Leaf Maple trees from rear yard of your home. Staff has reviewed the short plat file and building permit file and have determined that a Tree Cutting Permit will be required due to the steep slope. have enclosed the Tree Cutting section of the Edmonds Community Development Code and application materials. Public notice of a tree cutting proposal is required as part of this process, however, it is a staff decision and no public hearing is held unless the decision is appealed. The filing fee is $100. A Tree Cutting permit could be waived if an ISA certified arborist confirms in writing that any of the trees are hazardous, dead or diseased and should be removed. Please feel free to contact me if you have any questions about the process. Sincerely, Karissa Kawamoto Planner cc: Street File Enclosed: ECDC Section 18.45 Application materials BARBARA FAHEY MAYOR Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Hekinan, Japan PLANNING DATA NAME:_ M;V_t&M,at.4 Se_y_,,S SITE ADDRESS:__9?zk - 0( V,vj O&�DATE:_ 1 113 �L) ZONING: �_()-1?— PLAN CHK#: 97- 33Z PROJECT DESCRIPTION: �o �4-V_ . 10 CORNER LOT 130 (Yes/No) FLAG LOT No (41oKi (Yes/No) SETBACKS: Required Setbacks: Front: z5' Left Side: 10 ' Right Side: 10 ' Rear: Z 5 ' Actual Setbacks: 3z, 1 o 1 +& 1 Front: ' Left Side: =2,q' Right Side: /G' Rear: 2?-S' Street map checked for additional setback req , d?� b - v2v-vt. (Yes/No) I A9~1 LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATIO (Y/N) COVERAGE: ((n3l * jj.'5 '=�63�4-- LOTMaximum Allowed: 35�Actual: i3 4 r. BUILDING HEIGHT: Maximum Allowed: 25! Actual Height: 25' - 47•G Datum Point: 'aW OLM h.,L 1, A Datum Elevation: toZ ` A.D.U. CREATED?: No- fir)-.rs .; Aa4,, r,�66,c ,uk i,,. t� � SUBDIVISION: 5-9S-2,02.- - N6 &mSk w,j,) k4t, mw;, �,, Q,,rL� A - !nc ,,1� P� L CRITICAL AREAS #: CA - 95 -Z 43 SEPA DETERMINATION: c.,W. LOT AREA: 13, lo3'} OTHER: Plan Review By: c:U1cslpermid^p1andaL doc 'tl�kV 'A 'J/M hn A' (Sc4 - C*. -r -o- 66p,� W( it oG �S ram+ m�a. SKy> S 6 y,e G,.*r�y� (5k+st w„t,_ � � 5 ' 21¢rt.�.o„ un„4� .✓' � 58?% S� 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (425) 486-1669 • Fax 481-2510 December 23, 1997 City of Edmonds 'Planning Department 250 — 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Supplemental Letter Four Lot Short Plat Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 178096 Dear Sirs: NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING .GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS; GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS Snohomish County (425) 337-1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784-2756 DEC 4 IM PERMIT COUNTER This is a supplemental letter to our preliminary geological investigation letter for this site, dated July 11, 1996 (NCA File No 178096). The purpose of this letter is to clarify our use of the term "buffer zone" in the Building Setback subsection of our report. We have been requested to provide this clarification by Jeff Vehrs of the Emerald Coast Group. In our report, we recommended a minimum building setback of 10 feet for structures on Lots 3 .and 4, to establish a ".buffer zone". between dwelling areas and the slope margin. We did not intend the word "buffer" to be used as referenced and defined by the City of Edmonds in their Development Code. We understand that these definitions were provided in the new code which was enacted after our report was prepared. The City of Edmonds defines "buffer" as the area immediately next to and part of a steep slope. The buffer is intended to protect the stability of the slope. A 15-foot setback is required from the edge of the buffer. The topographic map provided corresponds with our field measurements taken at the time of our explorations. The topographic map of the steep slope area shows the maximum slope inclination is about Supplemental Letter Edmonds Short Plat December 23, 1997 NCA File No. 178096 Page 2 58 percent for a total height of 8 to 10 feet. The portion of the slope with an average slope above 40 percent is less than 20 feet in vertical height. Therefore, this slope does not qualify as a steep slope hazard area under the City of Edmonds Code. It is our opinion that a building setback of 10 feet from the toe of the slope is appropriate. This allows for maintenance of the area in the event a slough event occurs. The term "buffer" used in our original report was not intended to be used as defined in the code, but was. intended to be used as a setback of the structure from the toe of the slope. In the event that the steep slope hazard is still applied, it is our opinion that moving the buffer onto the slope and having the standard building setback start at the toe of the slope would be appropriate. This alteration of the buffer will have no adverse impact on the site, the public or any private party. We trust this letter provides you with the information you requested and appreciate the opportunity to be of continued service to you on this project. If you have any questions concerning this letter, do not hesitate to call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Charles P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer LMH:CPC:nt Three Copies Submitted ' NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC.. STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM WORKSHEET MO AXS AU s k-j1tj& OWNER CALC BY: ' -74s "�� ADDRESS (PHONE: WATER 21%L ��' }�i,� DATE: DrAllinn m E I TA***** IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE D PIPE LG ORIFICE DETENTION PIPE LENGTH LOCKING LID HED G <TYPICAL) APPROVED AS ND i E ' MINIMUM !D ^ 22- 9-1-31 p. HH ECCLL S 9Cj- GHTLI E CQNCIURESD O AN'f OF' RP _ 3 � .SX TO I% SLOPE .,in v 0 OUTLET �:, '© AA*.' a��®�� OUTLET CONTROL N '•(: gg9MIN. �0 r UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFICE /�P "ED CONTROL CATCH BASIN: C SYSTEM CROSS SECTION N -' ion m 2'X2'X6' .DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL ..I rn FROM CONTROL CD 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK EXISTING GRADE f r in FROM CONTROL OUTLET 1 WASHED ROCK i OUTFLOW TRENCH MIN 10' L6NG. PERF PIPE TO BE LEVEL PERFF PIPEy W/ ENND CAPS D PR1O HTOHPLACEMENTN0 WASHED DRAIN ROCK RIPRAP OUTLET RUNOFF SPREADER - TRENCH FOOTING D"NS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: 1. Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection APPROVED BY before backfilling and for final inspections. 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed DATE out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice _.__'must be kept open at all times. CITY C®PY -17 Ile J� P 7. sc /L SC MAC F4C i09. f r PA, GREA!EP -•r <� g TIGHTLINE MATERIAL N-12 ADS �s Sch 40 PVC P� ���® AS �e�� t005 SDR 35 (ASTM D3034) DEIC 1 '2) 1997 PERMI"i" Col_ l"'i, xzoe pLE 0 - nor .96 A.,IY7 iT eaVa L IAO. ....... ... ........ ..... . .... ..... . 5cgl pno . :APPROVED BY PLA-NNIVV06Z 1/4" RAKE PER FT. FROM GROUND LEVEL STREET FILE OC 17 199i Qe4o 9 N �� . DEC 1 6 1997 -.1 TN, IL 4. -air cir & GRCATCP 'i . U.9" S;� 'lip ........ %\ ACE � '"'— ''-v.°..4�''�o�•od `to � r � `veo4 W1S`d) 5E UGS O/�d Ob PS �, SO`d Z l-N 0g,'gD ��, a q1.,� 4 14)S dilAIVVY 3NIl1HOU 3_19V1.d3OOV rev NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS 17311-135th Avenue NE, A-500 Woodinville, WA 98072 (206) 486-1669 • Fax 481-2510 July 11, 1996 City of Edmonds Planning Department 250 - 5th Avenue Edmonds, Washington 98020 Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat Edmonds, Washington NCA File No. 178096 Snohomish County (206) 337.1669 Wenatchee/Chelan (509) 784.2756 STREET FILE INTRODUCTION This report presents the results of our geotechnical investigation for the planned LSA/Echelbarger four lot short plat in Edmonds, Washington. The site is located on the south side of Olympic View Drive near the 9200 block. We have been retained to evaluate a critical area and provide recommendations for site development. For our use in preparing this report, we have been provided with a copy of the plans, dated May 1996, prepared by Lovell- Sauerland & Associates, Inc. (LSA). The project will consist of four residential lots that will be accessed along the western property line. The access road will have a few feet of fill with a planned rockery as high as 4 feet on the downhill side. An existing slope will be regraded on the east side of Lot 3. A rockery 4 to 6 feet in height is planned at the base of this slope. The excavated material from the slope regrading will be used as fill to raise the road grades and to fill a low area on the west side of Lots 1 and 2. A steep slope located in the southeast corner of the site is to remain undisturbed. The steep slope will be.within Lots 3 and 4, and we have j been requested to provide setbacks from the toe of slope for these lots. Existing structures will be removed from the site during project development. The grading required to develop the lot areas will ! need to be accomplished during plat development as it incorporates building and roadway areas. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 2 SCOPE The purpose of this study is to explore the subsurface conditions and to provide recommendations for project development. Specifically, our scope of services includes the following: 1. Review the geologic map for the area. 2. Explore the subsurface conditions with backhoe excavated test pits. 3. Evaluate the ground water conditions. 4. Provide recommendations for site preparation, grading and structural fill. 5. Provide recommendations for foundation design and setbacks from steep slopes. 6. Provide general information for on -site drainage considerations. 7. Prepare a written report to document our findings and recommendations. 1 j SITE CONDITIONS Surface .� The site is over 1.3 acres in size and has a residence, garage, shed, and fallout shelter. The site is accessed in the middle of the north property line from Olympic View Drive. A couple of short retaining walls and hedges exist along side of the driveway. The site slopes generally to the northwest with a total vertical relief of approximately 50 feet. We measured the slopes on site with a clinometer. These measurements were compared to the site plan provided to us. Our slope angles are similar to the grades shown on the topography map provided to us. A steep slope exists in southeastern portion of the site. The steep slope has angles up to 30 degrees (58 percent) with a vertical relief of approximately 15 feet. Near the top of the steep slope, the neighboring property owner has been using the area as a garden. Debris has been placed on the steep slope, in the approximate area shown on the site plan, creating a pile approximately 3 to 4 feet in height. A low area exists in the northwest portion of the site. The lowest point is approximately 5 to 6 feet below the road elevation. The area is covered with tall grass. We suspect that the area was previously used as a borrow pit. Vegetation consists of a few large evergreen and deciduous trees with a dense undergrowth in the southern portion of the site. The developed portion of the site is covered with grass, trees and small i NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat j NCA File No. 178096 j July 11, 1996 Page 3 underbrush or shrubs. Tall strands of hedges occur along side the existing driveway. Vegetation, on the steep slope consists of brush, berry vines, and scattered deciduous trees. The trees on the steep slope range up to 22 inches in diameter. Geologic Conditions Landforms within this region comprise a system of glacially sculptured features, which have been exposed by post -glacial erosion. Locally, the terrain of this area is interpreted to have been glacially modified, and to have been placed during the latest glaciation of the Puget Lowland area. Glacial ice is thought to have last occupied the region during the late Pleistocene Epoch, some 11,000 to 13,000 years before present. The latest glacial advance over the area is referred to as the Vashon Stade of the Fraser Glaciation, of which the geologic materials on site are believed composed. The general stratigraphy within this area was observed and found to consist of advance glacial outwash, referred to as Esperance Sand (Qva/Qe). Advance outwash in this area is composed of a dense, fine sand, with trace silt and occasional gravel, which has been overridden and compacted by the weight of the thick glacial ice. The advance sands were observed in all of the test pits. It is not uncommon for more gravelly and/or silty zones to occur in these deposits. The Geologic Map of the Edmonds East and Edmonds West Quadrangle. Snohomish and King Counties. Washington by James P. Minard, published by U.S. Geological Survey in 1975, was referenced for the geologic and soil conditions at the site. The soil unit mapped at this site is classified as a Whidbey Formation (Qw), with glacial till (Qvt) and Esperance Sand in the near vicinity. We did not encounter the Qw or Qvt in the subsurface conditions of the site. The Esperance Sand deposit is the geological unit which commonly lies between the Whidbey and till deposits. Subsurface Conditions The subsurface conditions at the site were explored on June 8, 1996 by excavating ten test pits with .a tire -mounted backhoe. The depths of the backhoe test pits range from 4.0 to 7.5 feet. The approximate locations of the test pits are shown on the Site Plan in Figure 2. A representative from our firm was present during the explorations. He examined the soils and geologic conditions encountered and maintained logs of the test pits. The soils were visually classified in general accordance with the Unified Soil Classification System, a copy of which is presented as Figure 3. The logs of the test pits are presented in. Figures 4 through 6. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 z July 11, 1996 Page 4 i Subsurface conditions found on site consist mostly of a fine sand with silt or trace silt that varied from loose at the surface, to medium dense to dense with depth. We have interpreted these soils to be the Esperance Sands. Test Pit 9, located on the east portion of Lot 2, encountered 4 feet of fill. The fill consists of similar native material with some organics and bottles. We also expect localized fills in areas behind structures and/or retaining walls. The site is covered with a thin layer of topsoil. The topsoil ranged up to 0.8 feet in depth. Hydrologic Conditions No obvious evidence of ground water, perched ground water or outcropping ground water along the slopes was observed within this site. The advance outwash is considered fairly permeable and water is expected to infiltrate vertically in the deposit until it encounters a less permeable layer, such as the Whidbey Formation. We do not know the depths of these less permeable layers. The site appears to be well drained with the advance sands. SENSITIVE AREA EVALUATION Seismic Hazard The Puget Sound Region is classified as a Zone 3 by the Uniform Building Code. Seismic considerations for this type of site includes liquefaction potential and attenuation of ground motions by soft soil i deposits. The liquefaction potential is highest for loose sand and silty sand with a high ground water table. The sand deposits at the site below a few feet were at least medium dense or better. These soils A have a low potential of liquefaction. Seismically sensitive soft soils were not observed at this site. s Erosion Hazard The erosion hazard criteria used for determination of affected areas include soil type, slope gradient, vegetation cover, and ground water conditions. The erosion sensitivity is related to vegetative cover and the specific surface soil types (group classification); which are related to the underlying geologic soil units. The soils have been classified in accordance with the Soil Conservation Service (SCS) classification system and have been grouped with respect to the corresponding geologic unit. The geologic unit is Esperance Sand which corresponds to the SCS classification of Everett soils. The erosion hazard is greatest when the on -site soils have been stripped of vegetation. Provided the surface water flowing over the exposed sands are properly controlled during construction, and vegetation is re- established after development, we do not expect a significant erosion concern. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 5 -i Landslide Hazard An evaluation of potential landslide hazard was performed for this site. This evaluation includes soil type, underlying stratigraphy, slope gradient, ground water conditions, and vegetation cover. The soil conditions at the site commonly have high strengths and the slope angles are not excessively steep for these types of soils. We also did not observe any signs of instability such as shallow or deep-seated failures. Accordingly, it is our opinion that the native site slopes are stable and large scale failures are not expected. Localized slough events may occur in the steep portions depending on the area specific conditions. These would be expected to be shallow, involving the near -surface soils. The garden debris placed on the top of the steep slope is considered unstable may cause shallow sloughs of the steep slope. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS General The site is suitable for the planned residential short plat. The underlying sand deposits have moderately high strength, and the existing slopes are considered stable with respect to deep-seated landslides or failures. Surficial sloughing and erosion can occur, however, we did not observe evidence of slope failures. The risk of these sloughs can be minimized. by maintaining vegetation on the slopes and controlling any surface water that may exist. We consider that minimum setbacks from the toe of slope are considered appropriate to reduce the risk of future effects from surface sloughing. The outwash sand i deposits should provide a good subgrade for support of the structure's foundations. The soil to be used as structural fill will be obtained from the east side of Lots 1, 2 and 3. Excavating these soils to be used as fill, will cause a portion of the trees and the existing structures to be removed during the initial development activities. The fill soil will be placed in the roadway area and also the low depression on the west side of Lot 1. Building Setbacks Uncertainties related to building along steep slopes are typically addressed by the use of building setbacks. The purpose of the setback is to establish a "buffer zone" between the dwelling areas and the slope margin so that ample room is allowed for normal slope regression, or if a slope failure were to occur, the likelihood of dwelling involvement would be minimized. In a general sense, the greater the setback, the lower the risk. From a geological standpoint, the setback dimension is usually based on the .j slope's physical characteristics, e.g., slope height, surface angle, material composition, hydrology, etc. Other factors such as historical slope activity, rate of regression, type, and desired life span of the development are important considerations as well. { NELSON- COU VRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178.096 + July 11, 1996 Page 6 Based upon our explorations, slope evaluation and observations, we recommend a minimum building setback of 10 feet for structures on Lots 3 and .4. Setbacks are not necessary on the other lots from the toe of the steep slope. Specifically, we recommend that the setback area not be used for placement or storage of fill materials, including "temporary" excavation spoils from building area preparation and excavation. The landscape debris on the upper portion of the steep slope should be removed. The area should be re-established with vegetation if the soil is exposed. Any development or encroachment into the setback areas should be evaluated by a specific geotechnical evaluation and report. Site Preparation and Grading Site preparation and grading should consist of stripping the vegetation and topsoil layer to the planned subgrade. The exposed surface should be compacted to a non -yielding condition using a steel -drum vibratory compactor. The subgrade should be observed for indication of disturbance of the lower soils both during excavation and compaction. If the subgrade shows signs of disturbance, we should be retained to provide recommendations for repair or potentially alternate construction techniques. The on -site soil is expected to be only somewhat moisture sensitive with a uniform grain size, and may be difficult to work and compact during periods of wet weather. Earthwork should be suspended during rainfall and for a period of time afterward. The actual ability to work the site during the wet time of the year will be dependent on the performance of the soils under load when wet. These conditions should be observed and the site work adjusted accordingly. We recommend that all soil stock piles that are intended to be used as backfill be covered with plastic during rainy weather to help maintain a moisture content suitable for compaction. Sometimes a layer of crushed gravel or 2- to 4-inch spalls is used to provide wet season access and to improve pavement and foundation subgrade. The use of the gravel and spalls should be based on conditions observed in the field. Excavation Slopes Temporary slopes greater than 4 feet in height should be sloped at an inclination no steeper than 1.5H:1 V for the loose to medium dense sands, and 1 H:1 V for dense sands for cuts up to 12 feet in height. These slopes should be protected from rain by well secured plastic sheeting. If ground water or seepage is encountered, we should'be retained to comment on the stability of the slopes in the excavation. The above cut slope angles should be considered preliminary in nature. The contractor should be ultimately responsible for the stability of the cut slopes, as he is continuously at the site and can observe the performance on a daily basis. All state and federal standards should be followed with respect to cut slopes and workman safety. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. c ' Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 w July 11, 1996 Page 7 Structural Fill General: Fill will be placed with the current design. Fill to be placed beneath buildings, pavements or other settlement sensitive features, should be placed as structural. fill. Structural fill, by definition, is soil placed in accordance with prescribed methods and standards described in this report, and is monitored by an experienced geotechnical professional or soils technician. Field monitoring procedures would include a representative number of in -place density tests to document the attainment of the desired degree of relative compaction. Materials: Imported structural fill should consist of a good quality free draining granular soil, free of organic and other deleterious material, and be well graded to a maximum size of about 3 inches. Imported all weather. fill should contain no more than about 5 percent fines (soil finer than a U.S. No. 200 sieve) based on that fraction passing the U.S. 3/4-inch sieve. The on -site outwash soil can be used as structural fill but these soils contain some fine-grained particles and are considered slightly moisture sensitive. The use of the soils as fill should be limited to extended periods of dry weather. These soils have a uniform grain size and are sometimes more difficult to compact than well graded soils. Depending on the moisture content of the soil, adding water may be necessary to achieve compaction. Soils with a high organic content should not be used as structural fill. Fill Placement: Following subgrade preparation, placement of the structural fill may proceed. All backfilling should be accomplished in 8- to 10-inch thick uniform lifts. Each lift should be spread evenly and be thoroughly compacted prior to placement of subsequent lifts. All structural fill underlying building areas, and within 2 feet of 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. Fills more than 2 feet beneath sidewalks and pavement subgrades should be compacted to at least 90 percent of their maximum dry density. The moisture content of the soils to be compacted should be within about 2 percent of optimum, so that a readily compactable condition exists. It may be necessary to overexcavate 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. Care should be taken when compacting the soil condition near to adjacent houses. A photo documented survey of the neighboring structures is suggested prior to any heavy equipment arriving at the site. Sometimes the use of smaller compaction equipment and thinner lifts is better if adjacent structures are being impacted. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. ' Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 t July 11, 1996 Page 8 Foundations The foundations should .be placed either on undisturbed medium dense or dense native sand or structural fill extending to these soils. If footings are to bear on structural fill, the fill zone should extend outside of the footing a distance equal to the depth of fill beneath the footing. The soil conditions should be evaluated for appropriate density and disturbance at the time of construction. Exterior footings should extend a minimum of 18 inches below the adjacent outside ground surface, with interior column footings a minimum of 12 inchesbelow the bottom of the adjacent slab. All loose or disturbed soil should be removed from the foundation excavation prior to placing concrete. Standing water should not be allowed to accumulate in the building pad or footing trenches. For foundations constructed as outlined above, we recommend an allowable design bearing pressure of not more than 2,500 pounds per square foot-(psf) be used. Higher bearing values may be available based on specific soil conditions, footing size and settlement tolerance. This can be reviewed at the time that the structure is designed and foundation loads are determined. A .one-third increase in the above allowable bearing pressure may be used when considering short-term transitory wind or seismic loads. Although structural loading information was not available at the time of this study, based on our experience with similar structures supported on similar soil conditions and for the above allowable soil bearing pressures, we estimate that the maximum total post -construction settlement for medium dense sands should be 3/4 of an inch or less, and that the differential settlement across the building width should be 1/2 inch or less. We expect larger differential settlements may occur if the building is constructed part on fill and part on native soils. Lateral Pressures The lateral pressure acting on retaining walls is dependent on the nature and density of the soil behind the wall, the amount of lateral wall movement which can occur as backfill is placed and the inclination of the backfill. Soil pressures will be less for walls that are free to yield at the top at least one -thousandth of the height of the wall, than if movement is limited by such factors as wall stiffness or bracing. We recommend that yielding walls supporting horizontal backfill be .designed using an equivalent fluid density of 35 pounds per cubic foot (pcf). Non -yielding walls should be designed using an equivalent fluid density of 50 pcf. These lateral soil pressures do not include the effects of surcharges such as traffic loads or other surcharge loads. Surcharge effects should be considered, if appropriate. If desired, we can provide recommendations for surcharge loads as they become apparent. NEL SON- CO U VRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 9 All backfill for subgrade walls that will, not act as structural fill should be compacted to between 90 and 92 percent of the maximum dry density as determined in accordance with ASTM D 1557. Care should be taken to prevent the buildup of excess lateral soil pressures due to overcompaction of the backfill behind the wall. This can be accomplished by placing the backfill within 18 to 24 inches of the wall in lifts not exceeding 8 inches in loose thickness, and compacting this zone with hand -operated vibrating plate compactors. Lateral loads can be resisted by friction between the foundation and subgrade or the passive earth pressure acting on the below -grade foundation. For the latter, the foundation must be placed "neat" against the undisturbed soil, or backfilled with a clean, free draining, compacted structural fill. We recommend that lateral passive resistance be calculated by using an equivalent fluid weight of 250 pcf. An allowable coefficient of friction between footings and the subgrade of 0.40 may be used. These values include a factor of safety of 2.0 for lateral resistance and 1.5 for the coefficient of friction. The wall pressures, listed above, are based on the assumption that the soil directly behind the wall is free draining or a drainage composite is used. All of the on -site surface soils are not free draining. Some free draining soil may exist at depth. Wall drains are discussed in ,the Subsurface Drainage sub -section of this report. Site Drainage Surface Drainage: The finished ground surface should be graded such that storm water is directed off of the site. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where footings, slabs or pavements are to be constructed. Final site grades should allow for drainage away from the building. We suggest that the finished ground be sloped at a gradient of 3 percent minimum for a distance of at least 10 feet away from the building. Surface water should be collected by permanent catch basins and drain lines, and be discharged into a storm drain system. The surficial soils are loose to medium dense, fine sand. These soil types erode easily, especially when directly exposed to precipitation and runoff. Surface water should be diverted away from the steep to moderate slopes. Stripped areas should be revegetaied to improve the stability of the near -surface slope soils. The vegetation should be maintained until it is established. Subsurface Drainage: Where slabs are located below the surrounding grades, a system of perimeter footing drains should be included in the design. The perimeter footing drains should consist of 4-inch diameter perforated smooth -walled PVC pipe surrounded by pea gravel. The footing drains should be NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No..178096 i July 11, 1996 Page 10 located at the elevation of the footing. The drains should be tightlined to the storm drain system. We do not consider foundation drains necessary for standard foundations construction. A drainage system should be planned behind all retaining walls. The drainage system should consist of an 18-inch wide blanket of free draining material. Pea gravel would be a suitable material. If 0.5-inch or larger washed rock is used, filter fabric may be required to surround the rock. A drainage composite approved by geotechnical engineer could be used in place of the rock blanket. A 47-inch diameter perforated pipe should be placed along the base of the wall within the free draining material. The drains should be routed to an appropriate discharge point. Slabs -on -Grade Slabs should be supported on native subgrade soils or structural fill prepared as described in the Site Preparation and Grading and Structural Fill sub -sections of this report. Where moisture control is important, we recommend that the floor slabs be underlain by 6 inches of free draining granular material, for use as a capillary break. A suitable vapor barrier, such as heavy plastic sheeting, should be placed over the capillary break material. A 2-inch thick sand blanket may be placed over the vapor barrier to protect it during placement of the concrete and to help the concrete cure. Rockeries Rockeries are used in the Puget Sound region to face stable soil exposures to reduce weathering and slough type failures. Although it is not always common to consider a rockery as a retaining wall, in reality, the rockery can act as a gravity wall. The problems associated with using the rockery as a retaining wall is the quality of the rockery construction and the compacted backfill. There is some risk associated with rockeries since the rocks are not tied together. Therefore, the methods in which they are stacked are very important. Rockeries should be designed and constructed in accordance with Association of Rockery Contractors (ARC) guidelines, unless otherwise recommended in this report. Inspection of the rockery construction by the geotechnical consultant is recommended. We consider the rockery at the base of the cut slope to be appropriate. However, we recommend that the rock sizes be increased to H/2 instead of the H/3 as recommended in the ARC manual. We recommend that the same standards be used for the rockery that retains the driveway fill. However, since .the wall could be exposed to unknown wheel and traffic loads, it may be prudent to design it as a reinforced soil wall. The reinforcement could consist of either fabric or geogrid. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat } NCA File No. 178096 1 July 11, 1996 Page 11 USE OF THIS REPORT We have prepared this report for The City of Edmonds, Lovell- Sauerland & Associates, Inc. and their agents, for use in planning and design of this project. The data and report should be provided to prospective contractors for their bidding or estimating purposes, but our report, conclusions and interpretations should not be construed as a warranty of the subsurface conditions. The scope of our services does not include services related to construction safety precautions and our recommendations are not intended to direct the contractor's methods, techniques, sequences or procedures, except as specifically described in this report for consideration in design. There are possible variations in subsurface conditions between the explorations and also with time. A contingency for unanticipated conditions should be included in the budget and schedule. We should 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. Within the limitations of scope, schedule and budget for our services, we have strived to take care that our work has been completed in accordance with generally accepted practices followed in this area at the time this report was prepared. No other conditions, expressed or implied, should be understood. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Geotechnical Investigation Report Four Lot Short Plat NCA File No. 178096 July 11, 1996 Page 12 We appreciate the opportunity to be of service to you. If there are any questions concerning this report or if we can provide additional services, please call. Sincerely, NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. Rick B. Powell, PE Project Engineer EXPIRES Charles P. Couvrette, PE Principal Engineer Three Copies Submitted Six Figures cc: Mr. Jurgen Sauerland - Lovell-Sauerland & Associates, Inc. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - 1.3 1.3 - 4.0 4.0 - 6.5 TEST PIT TWO 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 - 4.0 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 2.0 2.0 - 3.5 3.5 - 5.0 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 0.2 - 2.0 2.0 - 4.0 USC SOIL DESCRIPTION SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (TOPSOIL) SP-SM RED -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED Qva) SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SOME ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15196 TOPSOIL SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) IFILL) SP-SM/SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (OLD TOPSOIL) SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TOPSOIL SP-SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND SOME ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIUQva) SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 AND 4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 178096 FIGURE 4 �\ i 2 rV-T S-E---;.CK AT PL -, :..I ::- %-I ": ..I Reference: Site Plan was created from a d dated May 16,1996 Site Plan 0 40 so Scale 1"= 40' FIGURE LSA/Echelbarger 2 .ILE NO. DATE 178096 June 1996 SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM GROUP MAJOR DIVISIONS SYMBOL GROUP NAME COARSE GRAVEL CLEAN GRAVEL GW WELL -GRADED GRAVEL, FINE TO COARSE GRAVEL GRAVEL GP POORLY -GRADED GRAVEL GRAINED GM SILTY GRAVEL SOILS MORE THAN 60%OFCOARSE FFLACnON RETAINED ON WITH FINES NO.4 SIEVE GC CLAYEY GRAVEL MORE THM W% RETAINED ON 00 NO.2SIEVE SAND CLEAN SAND SW WELL -GRADED SAND, FINE TO COARSE SAND SP POORLY -GRADED SAND MORE THAN SO% OF COARSE FRACTION PASSES NO.4 SIEVE SAND SM SILTY SAND SC CLAYEY SAND WITH FINES FINE SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC ML SILT CL CLAY GRAINED UQUIDUMrT LESSTHM W% ORGANIC OL ORGANIC SILT, ORGANIC CLAY . SOILS SILT AND CLAY INORGANIC MH SILT OF HIGH PLASTICITY, ELASTIC SILT CH CLAY OF HIGH PLASTICITY, FAT CLAY MORE THAN 50% PASSES UOVID UMrT sax OR MORE NO.200 SIEVE ORGANIC OH ORGANIC CLAY, ORGANIC SILT HIGHLY ORGANIC SOILS PT PEAT NOTES: SOIL MOISTURE MODIFIERS 1) Field classification is based on Dry- Absence of moisture, dusty, dry visual examination of soil in general to the touch accordance with ASTM D 2488 - 83. 1 Moist - Damp, but no visible water 2) Soil classification using laboratory tests is based on ASTM D 2487 - 83. Wet - Visible free water or saturated, usually soil is obtained from 3) Descriptions of soil density or below water table consistency are based on Interpretation of blowcount data, visual appearance, of soils, and/or test data. NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. SOIL CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM CONSULTING GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERS, GEOLOGISTS ---- AND ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENTISTS ---- FIGURE 3 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT ONE 0.0 - 1.3 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) (TOPSOIL) 1.3 - 4.0 SP-SM RED -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED Qva) 4.0 - 6.5 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 6.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 TEST PIT TWO 0.0 - 0.4 SM DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND WITH SOME ORGANICS (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, WET) 0.4 - 4.0 SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TEST PIT THREE 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2 - 2.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) jFILLI 2.0 - 3.5 SP-SM/SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY FINE SAND (LOOSE TO MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (OLD TOPSOIL) 3.5 - 5.0 SP LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TEST PIT FOUR 0.0 - 0.2 TOPSOIL 0.2 - 2.0 SP-SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND SOME ORGANICS (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (TOPSOIUQva) 2.0 - 4.0 SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED AT 1.5 AND 4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 178096 FIGURE 4 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH TEST PIT FIVE 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 - 4.0 TEST PIT SIX 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 - 4.0 TEST PIT SEVEN 0.0 - 0.5 0.5 - 2.0 2.0 - 7.5 TEST PIT EIGHT 0.0 - 0.4 0.4 - 3.0 3.0 - 5.5 USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TOPSOIL SP LIGHT BROWN WITH SLIGHT RUST STAINING FINE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TOPSOIL SP-SM LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED FROM 3.0 - 4.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TOPSOIL SP-SM/SM BROWN TO RED -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT TO SILTY FINE SAND (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST) (WEATHERED Ova) SP LIGHT BROWN TO BROWN FINE SAND WITH TRACE SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST) (Ova) SAMPLE WAS COLLECTED AT 6.0 FEET GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 7.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 TOPSOIL SP-SM TAN -BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST .TO WET) (WEATHERED Ova) SP-SM GRAY -BROWN FINE TO MEDIUM SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Ova) SAMPLES WERE COLLECTED FROM 4.0 - 5.0 FEET .GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.5 FEET ON 6/15/96 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 178096 FIGURE 5 1 LOG OF EXPLORATION DEPTH USC SOIL DESCRIPTION TEST PIT NINE 0.0 - 0.7 0.7 - 4.0 4.0 - 5.0 TEST PIT TEN 0.0 - 0.8 0.8 - 4.0 TOPSOIL SM/SP-SM BROWN TO DARK BROWN SILTY FINE SAND TO FINE SAND WITH SILT, ORGANICS AND A BOTTLE (LOOSE, MOIST) (FILL) SP-SM BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT (MEDIUM DENSE, MOIST). (Qva) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 5.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 TOPSOIL SP-SM RED -BROWN TO LIGHT BROWN FINE SAND WITH SILT AND OCCASIONAL COBBLES (MEDIUM DENSE TO DENSE, MOIST TO WET) (Qva) SAMPLES WERE NOT COLLECTED GROUND WATER SEEPAGE WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT CAVING WAS NOT ENCOUNTERED TEST PIT WAS COMPLETED AT 4.0 FEET ON 6/15/96 NELSON-COUVRETTE & ASSOCIATES, INC. FILE NO. 178096 FIGURE 6 t � vi%`3. ,�.-mot• ��,�..va" •,,.� 1rT"¢�$""i�.,,...,�o"�a:r �,,n,tgr„�,,,M'i��'}.�'�%�Yrl�.-r4,-,e41''tPry-�,.,.:¢ J'Ay5 CITY OF EDMONDS I B90 �9 Address of Construction: Property Legal Description (Include all easements): Owner and/or Contractor: State License No. ] Single Family . ❑ Multi -Family (No. of Units ) ❑ Commercial ❑ Public SIDE SEWER PERMIT PERMIT N© 3921 EDMONDS XMIENT PLANT IC WORKS DEPI Building Permit No. 706Y 9 / Invasion into City Right -of -Way No ❑ Yes RW Construction Permit No. Cross other Private Property: l No ❑ Yes Attach legal description/hand copy of recorded easement 1 ce tha' ave read and shall comply with all city requirements as indicated on the back of the Permit Card. ...?.2s 9 Date * CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) BEFORE ANY EXCAVATION * ** PERMIT MUST BE POSTED ON JOB SITE ** White Copy: File I Green Copy: Inspector Bull Copy: Applicant Revised 3l90 O z F w w w 0 CA P4 a w zz U O 14 C � O z uO � a) V F z 3 H o cn z a) o w z W 0 W n LU W Ir 0 0 0 IL IL CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME,,OF BUSINESS Ax/ It"m /�///"we. , Sir_"tli_'i✓S MAILING ADDRESS � 76� N it � i .�>'P�• � ,� . CITY ZIP TELEPHONE NUMBER S'c54TG 2113 f YAi - Yw= S 2Z5- ADDRESS ^7 -Rv ZIP TELEPHONE I STATE LICENSE NUMBER I EXPIRATION DATE I nnnl noarrintinn of P—nortu - i—hirt-11 an—mAntR Property TeX Account: Parcel No. ® NEj_ RESIDENTIAL'',' ..: ,.: ... PLUMBINGNECH. , O"COMMERCIAL'- COMPLIANCE OR. ADDITION t' T CHANGEOFUSEF �, APT.:BLDG: " REMODEL SIGN: ,0,! FENCE REPAIR r - S. L—x_FT) DEMOLISH WOODSTOVE , Q SWIM POOL.. 'INSERT HOT TUB/SPA GARAGE RETAINING WALU CARPORT O ROCKERY RENEWAL 0 NUMBER O OF C STORIES .3 NUMBER OF DWELLING / UNITS CRITICAL/ AREAS C NUMBER -' DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE (ATTACH PLOT PLAN) /Jlnc LOIA 1 I I C1. ZONE PERMIT 99 NUMBER 770.4 w. JOB ('� //''''� ).///'''���SUITE/A� ADDRESS 20 ]l / J ( Vr_1,1 / J� .EG L DE RIPTION CHECKS Dw NO LID NO. 1•��' J _ ZC 151 PUBLIC RIGHT OF 4AY PER OFFICIAL STREET TESCP Approved O EXISTING REQUIRED DEDICATION RW Permit Required ❑ Street Use Permit Req'd ❑ PROPOSED' v.��1 inspection Required .a' Sidevrals Required ❑ METE SIZ€I LINE IZE NO.OF F�URE$ PRV )RED YES No REMARKS e Q ro v; d2 Poe 4 acid die n i • [SYOiIDN eotiLfirol iI hegd. oAl ope TEpD I1 I ` Iq '-7 REVIEWED NCS' A4. am% t / VARIANCE OR CU". ADS I!, SHORELINE e SERA REVIEW - SIGN AREAi:: HEIGHT COMPLETE EXEMPT' ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED •A I EXP, LOT COVERAGE: REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FL) .ALLOWED. PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT URSIDE REAR 461 LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEW By DATE I li: /. .!4 `71uA_4 _P- '.. 12,,7_4997 SPECIAL INSPECTOR A9F9i - '.3 /?J�'f�fL' J LOADPANT 'REQUIRED 113 YES FiGj'`7(j•/J QQ`% ' SPECTIONS PER UBC 108 r. r NAL INSPEcT.idN=REQUIRED E4 VALUATION 1N CHECK FEE HEAT 511URCE: 13LAZINII 617 W a4r_ 1110 iC % Plan Check No. T - ?j3�_ L F.TATEA.GUR'C.ARGE (J This Permit covers work to be done on private property ONLY.LL Any construction on the public domain (curCs, sidewPlks, driveways, marquees, etc.) WIII require separate permission. Permit Application:180 Days �.L�., Permit Limit Year - Provided Work Is Started Within 180 Days STORM DRAINAGE FEE �c �Nt: "Appllcant, on behalf of his or her spouse, heirs, assigns and ENG. INSPECTION FEE 310 successors In interest, agrees to indemnity, defend and hold W harmless the City of Edmonds, Washington, its officials, f employees, and agents from any and all claims for damages of whatever nature, arlsing directly or indirectly from the Issuance of this permit. Issuance of this permit shall not be deemed to PUN CHECK DEPOSIT c modify, waive or reduce any requirement of any city ordinance or nor limit in any way the City's ability to enforce any ordinance TOTAL AMOUNT DUE provision." 1 hereby acknowledge that I have read this application; that the APPLICATION APPROVAL Information. given Is correct; and that I am the owner, or the duly ATTENTION authorized agent of the owner. I agree to comply with city and THIS PERMIT slate laws regulating construction; and In doing the work authoriz- AUTHORIZES This application Is not a permit until ed thereby, no person will be employed In violation of the Labor ONLY THE signed by the Building Official or his/her Code of the State of Washington relating to Workmen's Compensa- WORK NOTED Deputy; and fees are paid, and receipt is tion Insurance and RCW 18.27. INSPECTION acknowledged in space provided. SIGNATJJRE (0 ER AGENT) DATE SIGNED DEPARTMENT �/ - 1v- 17-17 CITY OF OFFICI $IGN DATE r' EDMONDS CALL FOR RELEASED BY: DATE ATTENTION INSPECTION VIA % /8 W2 IT IUNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR ��� O��oS ORIGINAL — File YELLOW — Inspector A CERTIFICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK — Owner GOLD — Assessor 10247 STANDARD DRAINAGE DETENTION SYSTEM WORKSHEET MO AAS-- AIW Ws tN(7 OWNER CALC BY: ADDRESS PHONE: 745FR -SF us 511%01 DATE: SQUIRED. CALF.* Y DATA * * * * * IMPERVIOUS AREA PIPE DIA ORIFICE it eDETENTION PIPE PIPE LENGTH LOCKING LID I FINISHED GRAD (TYPICAL) "i MINIMUM i MM (qqRp Eg q TIGHTLI E I MEASIURIF`DEFR�MCTOP OF y' n CONC BOX OR RISER» n SZ TO 17. SLOPE APP R ED AS NOTED °-=LiT :r ��f` °mv OV 7iy CONTROL Wi �F� 9MINOUTLET € t7 - 3 2 UPPER CATCH BASIN ORIFICE (A M CONTROL CATCH BASIN y� FILE 'i�N�1 01 r OC SYSTEM CROSS SECTION < u� r wn m 2'X2'X6' DEEP, 4-6' SPALLS OR EQUAL i11 FROM CONTROL CB 2'X 2'X 3' DEEP, 3/4' CRUSHED ROCK EXftTRENCH r FROM CONTROL OUTLET ENCH MIN 10' LONG. BE LEVEL rTO W/ END CLAPS RIPRAP OUTLETPRIORTOPLACEMENTNOF WITH MIRAF DRAIN ROCK i RUNOFF SPREADER - TRENCH FOOTING DRAINS SHALL NOT BE CONNECTED TO DETENTION SYSTEM NOTES: L Call Engineering Division (771-0220) for a tightline and detention system inspection APPROVED BY before backfilling and for final inspections. 2, Responsibility for operation and maintenance of drainage systems on private property is the responsibility of the property owner. Material accumulated in the storage pipe must be flushed DATE out and removed from the catch basins to allow proper operation. The outlet control orifice must be ke t o en at all tunes. t) . RECEIVED N O V 1 3 1997 PERMIT COUNTER VIECEIVED DE PEAMITCOUNTER foe • a^ i \' • IX IrCRA i a r •` L— ` �. i104 tv d S .06 w2v �s 16' A //6 //B �ti & .- ez 11i.0 ' 197 RSCEIVED DEC 16 1997 PERMIT COUN Ir \ r� N%N Tj \ f G� l G�,P,QG•= - S-7 e* ID