20050326.pdfDATE RECEIVED �) +•
PERMIT EXPIRES
% PERMIT
CITY OF EDMONDS NUMBER �> .Y" )SE
� '
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ooREss I SUITEIAPT#
OWNER NAMEWAME OF BUSINESS / /z
-ZA tO C PLAT. NAMEISUB DIVISION NO. LOT NO, LID NO.
MAILING ADDRESS 6 ,..�, LID FEE S
`! (� �JW ��' PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Pe Ait Req tl ❑
[[ -- R W Parma Required ❑
CIT( ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING _ PROPOSED Street Use Permit Required ❑
�+ �j �f� / 2 __ Inspection Required ❑
ti �j 4, 0 ' 7 _, _ UndergroSidewalk und
cared ❑
(/SCJ REQUIRED DEDICATION FT
Wirmo rn ueod ❑
NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
YES 0 NO O z
ADDRESS REMARKS w
�
.7 `� OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE Z
CITY V ZIP ITELEPHONE v �.��n� S _ W
w9.
NAME
ADDRESS
CITY ZIP
CBL# P9 f,/
+ j W,L 724
Y , K(
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION
/DATEPG ED Y,
y
PROPERTY TAX ACCO NT PARCEL NO.
❑ NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBIN GhaA0410
OOITION' ❑ COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR .
❑
XREMODEL
E3CHANGE OF USEMIXED USE
❑ MULTIFAMILY ❑ SIGN
❑ REPAIR ❑ GRADING CYDS ❑ FENCE X FT.)
❑ DEMOLISH ❑ TANK ❑ OTHER
❑GARAGE 'RETAINING FIRE
CARPORT ❑ ROCKERY WALL ❑ FIREA ARM SPRINKLER
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS Oa ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
NUMBER lGG' NUMBER OF
ENGIN
FIRE REVIEWED BY
775
DATE W
z
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION SEPA
REO'D COMPLETED I EXIMPT
YES ANO
CA# — ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT
WAIVER 0LLOWED ALLOWED PROPOSED APROPOSED
STUDY ; �5 z5a
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)' PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR- FRONT URSIDE REAR
-� z
0 10
z
PARKING O�p$EA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE g
REO'D , PROVIDED I 1/j�2(7 _ 2�n/ IL
I
L=am L�70
+
OCCUPANT
GROUP
L
M OFZ DWELLING SPECIAL INSPECTION CONSULTANT OCCUPANT
O STORIES UNITS LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REQUIRED 13 YES.
REMARKS
f'p �Gtly �,lo
/r- .•-�f,�. GEOTECH REPORT
BY:
STRUCTURAL DESIGN
BY:
VAL%UATIO%N%
$ /' / l /
Description FEE Description FEE
Plan Check r State Surcharge
HEAT SO RCE LOT SLOPE 1 STED_D TE
Building Permit_ City Surcharge r "
PLAN CHECK NO: ) Plumbing 121109Base Fee
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED, THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO Mechanical L ✓
t-- BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
i DONMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE Grading
J
L: SEPARATE PERMISSION.
r Engr. Review .
IY PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(5)
W
a PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC 19.00.005(A)(6) Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION g ' p
W "APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit7 70
J IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLO HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY p /w
_ FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE l' r
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscape Insp. Total Amt. Due J[
= NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.•
Recording Fee 1 Receipt #
1 HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER, I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC• CALL This application Is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Foos are paid. and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged In space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18:27.
FI S SIGNATU DA E
SIGN A WNE O E T DATE SIGNED (425) / L
771w0220 RE = VD BY I ' f DAT
ATTENTION EXT. 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL .� .
A FINAL. INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTI-
FICATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC109 I IBC110 I IRC110. ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW •
PINK -OWNER •GOLD ASSESSOR R
10104 PRESS HARD = YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
O
6
m
L s�
i
O
n
m
CM
M
.. ♦J O
on
C
�qr
=rn
M
10
CZ
r -I
40)
O M
' 41
mm
O
0)
nr
rn
C CD
r in
Zmr�i1
D
X
2
D
1 Z
2
O
0
M
1 J 1
mrr
Fro
GARY HAAKENSON
�...,..,..s, Yz.... CITY OF EDMONDS
MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH • EDMONDS, WA 138020 • (425) 771.0220 • FAX (425) 771.0221
l
.,, Website: www.d.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Inc 18010 Planning • Building • Engineering
Ms. Cheryl Foster May 5, 2005
1154 Viewland Way
Edmonds; Washington 98020 r Z i'.
Or,
zi
RE: Request for Alternate Design — Air Admittance Valve 0
rn.
Dear Ms. Foster,
The City is in receipt of your request for alternate design (reference building permit #2005-0326) for c rn
installation of an air admittance valve on an upper floor island sink in your home at T154 Viewland m 0
Way in Edmonds. O cr.
For clarification, our City Building Inspectors have viewed your current .field conditions and both m z
inspectors provided you alternate means to provide conventional venting of the island sink. It is the c z
City's contention that conventional venting can be provided at minimal disruption to the joists, heating
supply ducts, etc. vi
OM
Regarding your statements concerning the City of Seattle and City of Bellevue; Seattle is the only
jurisdiction in the State that has a stand alone building/plumbing/mechanical code. I have no personal IM M
knowledge if air admittance valves are out right approved by Seattle code without condition. The City O v: i
of Bellevue allows air admittance valves wider conditional approval, and requires that applicants c
demonstrate technical infeasibility. Homeowners must also sign statements acknowledging that the C Co
installation is an alternate method. Lastly, I differ in opinion that air admittance valves are `commonly r c� .
used' and that `these devices are approved in many municipalities.' To my knowledge no jurisdiction
in the State allows unconditional substitution of air admittance valves in lieu of conventional venting.
Regardless, based on your information that the upper floor island sink will be used minimally, your > Z
request to use an air admittance valve is hereby approved with the noted condition below.
co.Id
Many products are: `guaranteed for life' but usually with stipulations such as, `provided O
properly installed and properly maintained,'etc. Condition of approval of the alternate design rn
request shall include that the plumbing contractor provide you with written directions as to how
to inspect and maintain the air admittance valve for life. Lastly, these directions shall be
provided to all future homeowners.
Sincerely,
Jeannine L. Gra
Building Official i
Cc: State Mechanical
•
MICROFILM
Incorporated August 11, 1890 •
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
May 3, 2005 RECE1yEp
Ms. Jeannine Graf
MAY
92005
Development Services Department
Building Division DEV PRENT SERVICES CYR,
City of Edmonds CRY OF EL)MMOS
121 51h Avenue North E ;
Edmonds, WA 98020
Re: Alternate Method Request for Building Permit it 2005-0326
Z' ,
Dear Ms. Graf, 0.
Id
n
M
lam requesting approval for an alternate design to the plumbing vent system in the kitchen island bar sink,
as part of the current remodel of my home. Due to space constraints and contention of other building
components, an "air admittance" valve rather than a "loop vent" is our proposed solution. Installation of a N-.�
loop vent, as preferred by the city of Edmonds, is not possible according to our plumbing contractor, p m;,
general contractor and City. of Edmonds inspectors. m p s
O
The following conditions should be noted: O C
• S There is a finished living space with a support beam directly below the space at issue. The existing
s Y
=m
floor joist depth of 10" does not provide enough space to properly construct a loop vent. m Z
There are exiting heating supply ducts in the joist cavities where the loop vent piping would have to be
DZ
• constructed. r.
Cutting, notching or boring the floor joist for a loop vent would degrade the floor system to an _
unacceptable structural condition. We were required to notch the floor joist to accommodate the waste 10
i.
line. Further intrusion into the joist would violate the 25% maximum code requirement. f
I Overall, my remodeling project has significant plumbing improvements, all of which have been placed } rn m
under test, inspected and approved by the City of Edmonds as of 4/28/05, with the exception of this one O N
item. The bar sink in the kitchen island would not experience heavy use and is intended for use while I O r
entertaining: C N
1 r ZrAir admittance valves are commonly used in similar situations and were proposed as the alternative method
by our plumbing contractor, State Mechanical. l have enclosed a letter from Greg Platz, owner of State ! �'
Mechanical . Product specifications and test listings for a couple of air admittance valves are also attached.
These devices are, code -approved in many municipalities and are guaranteed for life.
' Z
Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. If you have any questions, please call me at 425- —I
673-2295: 3:
Z
- M
Cheryl o er 1
1154 V e land Way
Edmonds, WA 98020 i
MICROFILM
i
l
c fu
F`..
-.
e
16 1
In
{ O
c }:::,},
f �'. N
m
CRITICAL AREA
GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT ca�k,
Foster/Zapora Property - Deck Construction ti
Edmonds, Washington m 0
HWA Project No. 2005.000-21Task 400 o c
v
MII
f
Prepared for m/�
joG!
Ms. Cheryl Foster Z:
April 18, 2005 }
t
0;�t t+�
4 r
r
HWAGEOSCIENCES 'INC.
� Ccoteclrnicrrl lirrgirrcrrirrs; sLI}�dru•�•enlu�•y � (;r•ucrrrironurcn!rrt ,ti:rriicS • Irra,citcnrr �• 7'cstirr� �
April 18, 2005
Y
HWA Project No. 2005-000-21 Task 400
Cheryl Foster i
1154:Viewland Way
Edmonds, Washington 98026 z
F
O ?,
l t Subject: CRITICAL AREA GEOTECHNICAL ENGINEERING REPORT 0
Foster/Zagora Property -Deck Construction M
6' 1154 Viewland Way T
1. -�
Edmonds, Washington -� t
my 4
m
t.. Dear Ms. Foster; n
0
4 As requested, HWA GeoSciences Inc. (HWA) completed a site reconnaissance and m Z.
F
cursory geotechnical evaluation of your property where you are proposing to construct a a Z
r
°+ new exterior deck. This letter report summarizes our observations and provides our
conclusions and recommendations. %:.
O � t^
i AREA ADDRESSED IN THIS CRITICAL AREA REPORT M M4
v N it
` Information provided by Waite Architects (see attached drawing) shows the proposed t O r
CN
new deck will have approximate dimensions of 11 feet by 20 feet, and will be located �•
-' across the south end of your house. The new deck will be at the 2na floor level. One side m o'
will be supported on the house, and the other will be supported on three, .16 inch square
by 12-inch thick, concrete pads. A further deck addition is planned for the western side
of.the house, on the opposite side of the house from the steep slope area.
Z`
Your existing house is a 2-story, wood-frame, structure supported on cast-in-place
04
concrete spread footings. The house appears to have been constructed in the 1970's. The
house is oriented in a north-south direction with the building pad partly cut into the toe of O
' an approximately 30 feet high slope. A rockery wall of about 10 feet height supports the n
cut. The house is located about 9 to 10 feet from the base of the rockery. m
' According to the survey information shown on the attached drawing, the average
inclination of the slope above the rockery varies from about 107% (about 47 degrees) at '
the north end to about 56% (about 29 degrees) on the south end directly above the
i
planned deck location. Because the slope inclination is greater than 40%
and the vertical relief is greater than 10 feet, the slope behind the planned 19730 - 64th Avenue W.
rd
l Suite 200
JZ I
Lynnwood, WA 98036:5957 i ell,
Tel: 425374.0106
Fax: :425.774:2714
www.hwageosciences.com
ld
rr,•
April 18, 2005
HWA Project No. 2005-000-21 Task 400
Yr'
deck location is classified as a Landslide Hazard Area in terms of Section 23.80.020 'B2
' of the newly revised Title 23 Critical Areas Regulations of the Edmonds Community
Development Code.
OBSERVATIONS AND ASSESSMENT OF GEOLOGICAL HAZARDS.
3 Brian Hall, P.E., of HWA, made the following observations during site reconnaissance
visits on April 6 and 11, 2005:
t
• Near the north end of the rockery, the slope inclination above the rockery is
locally over -steepened and is experiencing surficial erosion and some surface m
sloughing. The activities of burrowing animals are contributing to this
disturbance., On the property to the northeast, where the slope becomes very steep m
U5 '.
(bluff -like), the remains of a previous shallow slide can be seen. The slide scar a m
has been protected from further erosion by covering with a sheet of plastic. M 0
n
O
• On the south end of the wallin the vicinity of the planned deck, no evidence of
recent erosion or sloughing was observed: The slope is vegetated with ferns, m z
shrubs and some. trees. The area near the toe of the slope is mulched with wood c —�
DZ
' mulch. At the top of the slope on the neighboring property'L a timber crib r
retaining wall of about 6 to 7 feet height is present. This wall appears stable and N ;'
no drainage pipes discharge onto the slope.
F
• Where material is exposed on the slope above the planned deck location, it m m
consists of fine to medium sand with some silt and scattered gravel colluvium. 01
_
No evidence of interlayering of materials was noted. The material forming the c vmi
slope is interpreted to be Advance Outwash as mapped in the geological map r, m 0
n
"Preliminary Surficial Geological Map of the Edmonds East and EdmondsWest �'—
Quadrangle, Snohomish and King Counties, Washington "; dated.1975 and
prepared by Mackey Smith. It should be noted that the more recent geological I
L. "Geological Ma o the Edmonds Fast and Part o the Edmonds West Z
map g P .f f y
Quadrangles, Washington dated 1983 and prepared by James P. Minard, _
indicates the area is underlain by Vashon Till.. It is possible that the upper part of N
the slope is blanketed by till, but no direct visual evidence of till was apparent. O
•
M It was not possible to reliably determine the stability of the rockery because no
information is available on the thickness and internal configuration of the rockery,
1•
or nature of the undisturbed native material retained by the wall. However, no
evidence of previous instability, or evidence of potential future instability in the
form of bulging or overhanging sections, was observed. Moreover, the requisite
four to five man size rocks has been used for the construction of the lower
courses. The only areas of minor distress noted were two or three areas, where
Foster-"Lapora Deck GeoC. Ass.(new code) 2 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
1 April 18, 2005 }
fIWA Project No. 2005-000-21 Task 400
FN
it
individual rocks in the face had cracked. Crushed rock was visible behind the
face rocks, and was likely used as a drainage course.
r
• The slope material and the material at the base of the wall were probed using a''/2-
inch diameter, pointed, steel rod. Under body weight, the probe typically
penetrated the soil on the slope to an average depth of about 18 to 24 inches, and;
f about 3 to 4 inches at the toe of the wall. It was concluded from this probing that,
the loose material on the slope face was less than 36 inches thick, and the soil j
between the rockery and the house was medium dense to dense, and capable of Zp.
f supporting pad footings. e�—i
M.
• At the time of the visits, the area between the house and the rockery was wet, and
�%
two zones of surface wetness were noted on the face of the wall. It. was : N -�
concluded that the wet areas reflected poor drainage of surface runoff because the c rn
visits were undertaken after periods of rain, there was an absence of vegetation rn p
associated with persistently wet ground conditions, and the ground at the toe of O C r4
,
the rockery is flat. The presence of burrowing animals in the slope. directly aell
bove ='m
zr
u.;
the rockery is indicative of dry slope conditions. The wetness on the face of the O
wall does not constitute significant ground water seepage and rather reflects > z
drainage of slope runoff through the wall.
• Wet conditions are present at the extreme north end of the property beyond the
north end of the rockery. Marsh vegetationsuch as skunk cabbage is growing in
f - this area. This seepage a ears to originate from drains located on the adjacent
m m
Pp g dJ oO Vi
property. n
C
r m.n
ANALYSIS OF PROPOSAL r
We consider that the landslide hazard threat in the vicinity of the proposed new deck
is low for the following reasons;
l
Z
• The slope consists of Advance Outwash (possibly overlain by glacial till),
ca
which are capable of remaining stable at very steep slopes.
_.� • There is no fill on the slope. rn
• In the vicinity of the planned new deck, there is no evidence of impermeable
soils interbedded with granular soils, no significant ground water seepage was
noted (the two patches of wetness on the wall relate to surface runoff), and
there is no evidence of previous landsliding or existing landslide deposits.
w
Foster-"Lapora Deck Gwt. Ass.(new code) 3 I-IWA GEOSCIENCES INC.
i
��
Poll
op
April 18, 200
fHWA Project No. 2005-000-21 Task 400
i
' . The thickness of loose surface material was probed and found to be less than
36 inches thick (averages about 18 to 24 inches thick).
Based on our assessment, we consider that the planned deck construction will not
impact the slope and will not increase the landslide hazard threat beyond pre-
development conditions, and will not adversely impact other critical areas. If the
s deck is located and designed as recommended in the following section, we certify per
the intent of Section 23.80.060 A4 that the deck will be safe for the anticipated z is
conditions. ll
M
RECOMMENDATIONS
Imn
o;
�'; • The pad footings for the deck should be located at least 10 feet from the base of v� = a`
the high section of the rockery, because a rockery is not an engineered structure, d rn
C:
F� and because individual rocks from the top coarse can be dislodged.
i; r ti O C
• 4: s The allowable soil bearing pressure is 2,000 psf, The planned 16-inch square by m f
t
i
.12 inches thick pad footings will likely be suitable provided this allowable p -Zi
'%r$ .
r bearing pressure is not exceeded. The base of the pads should be located at least A z tog
r. =4 t,
`? 18 inches below ground surface for frost protection.To
_
a
• The pad footing excavations should made using hand equipment and no
j excavations should be undertaken within 10 feet of the base of the high portion of m
the rockery. Disturbed bearing soil in the base of the excavation should be vo
compacted to a dense/hard condition by hand tamping prior to concrete 0
placement. Similar foundation recommendations apply to the pad footings for the N,
deck on the western side. of the house. r lot
z n
LIMITATIONS '
Our scope of work included a visual assessment and review of existing geotechnical f
information, augmented by shallow hand probings. Deep borings or other intrusive 3:'
1
testing on the subject property may have indicated other conditions lothat are not apparent Iz
` in a visual inspection: The interpretations in this report should not be construed as our
M warranty of the subsurface conditions. Experience has shown that soil and ground water co
conditions can vary significantly over small distances. If, during future site operations,
subsurface conditions are encountered which vary appreciably from those described
herein,1AWA should be notified for review of the recommendations of this letter report,
P.
and revision of such if necessary.
sPL
Foster-Zapora Deck Geot. Ass,(new code) 4 HWA GEOSCIENCES INC. i
M_Q
t
row -
-L1. d, 1 1 go o1. `•