CANOD.pdfCity of TA 1'
Area Notice of Decision
Applicant:
Property Owner:
IVe-
Critical Area File 4:
0
Permit Number:
Site Location:
Parcel Number:
Project Descriptio I n:
e*� G)I cxl�cv-,6 rr_�,o
1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer.
I The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23,40,220, 23,50.220, and/or
23.iO.040.
3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.
E] Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40, 120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. -""The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
El Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance,
E51 Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23,40,160, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations, Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
El Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
12
ic
Reviewer Signature Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
1-1 16
❑ Conditional Waiver. No critical area report is required for the project described above,
1. There will be no alteration of a Critical Area or its required buffer.
I The proposal is an allowed activity pursuant to ECDC 23,40,220, 23,50.220, and/or
23.iO.040.
3. The proposal is exempt pursuant to ECDC 23.40.230.
E] Erosion Hazard. Project is within erosion hazard area. Applicant must prepare an erosion and
sediment control plan in compliance with ECDC 18.30.
Critical Area Report Required. The proposed project is within a critical area and/or a critical area
buffer and a critical area report is required. A critical area report has been submitted and evaluated
for compliance with the following criteria pursuant to ECDC 23.40.160:
1. The proposal minimizes the impact on critical areas in accordance with ECDC 23.40, 120,
Mitigation sequencing;
2. The proposal does not pose an unreasonable threat to the public health, safety, or welfare
on or off the development proposal site;
3. -""The proposal is consistent with the general purposes of this title and the public interest;
4. Any alterations permitted to the critical area are mitigated in accordance with ECDC
23.40.110, Mitigation requirements.
5. The proposal protects the critical area functions and values consistent with the best
available science and results in no net loss of critical functions and values; and
6. The proposal is consistent with other applicable regulations and standards.
El Unfavorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project is not exempt or does not adequately
mitigate its impacts on critical areas and/or does not comply with the criteria in ECDC 23.40.160 and
the provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations. See attached findings of
noncompliance,
E51 Favorable Critical Area Decision. The proposed project as described above and as shown on the
attached site plan meets or is exempt from the criteria in ECDC 23,40,160, Review Criteria, and
complies with the applicable provisions of the City of Edmonds critical area regulations, Any
subsequent changes to the proposal shall void this decision pending re -review of the proposal.
El Conditions. Critical Area specific condition(s) have been applied to the permit number referenced
above. See referenced permit number for specific condition(s).
12
ic
Reviewer Signature Date
Appeals: Any decision to approve, condition, or deny a development proposal or other activity based on the
requirements of critical area regulations may be appealed according to, and as part of, the appeal procedure, if any,
for the permit or approval involved.
Revised 12/16/2010
(,5,e-<.-,4e,chnica1 Ery gir)eering ancl Earth Science,,.7
-FrITITIM-M.T.
RMT171 0=0 0
SUBJECT: HOT TUB SITE EVALUATIONS
723 Hanna Park Road
Edmonds, Washington
Project No. 12-110-01
=- mgmi��
24
00"
In accordance with a request from Erik, this is to confirm our evaluations and
recommendations regarding the siting of the subject proposed hot tub and equipment
pad as shown on the attached Figure 1. We have previously prepared a geotechnical
evaluation report dated April 16, 2012 for your new residence.
The existing bluff slope that borders the west side of the site is considered to be a
Landslide Hazard Area based upon its height and very steep inclination per the criteria
presented in 23.80.020 B of the Edmonds code.
Based upon our previous site observations and shallow explorations and review of the
geologic map, the bluff is composed of very dense/hard glacially consolidated soils.
Our previous observations of thp existing bluff slope surface and the area above the
slope revealed no evidence of deep seated instability of the slope nor any ongoing
shallow instability on the site or on the adjacent properties.
We previously recommended a minimum 20 foot buffer + 15 foot setback from the top
of slope for siting your new residence per the development standards of section
23.80.070 of the Edmonds code, The desired location of the hot tub as shown on
Figure 1 is within the buffer + setback previously recommended. However, considering
the light load and small size,of the proposed hot tub and equipment pad we support a
reduced 13 foot buffer + 15 foot setback for siting of the hot tub and equipment pad
provided that they are founded on the dense/very dense natural soils. The hot tub and
equipment pat buffer and setback are shown on the attached Figure 1.
R0, Box 276, Issaquah, WA 98027-0276 - Phone: (425) 397-4228 Fax: (425) 39 7-1?28
Nelson October 22, 2012
In our opinion the reduced buffer for the hot tub and equipment pad will not adversely
impact the critical area and will not increase the threat of geological hazard to adjacent
properties beyond pre -development conditions.
This letter was prepared with the skill and care ordinarily exercised by local members of
the geotechnical profession practicing under similar conditions in the same locality.
We make no other warranty, either express or implied.
Variations may exist in site conditions between those described in our previous report
and actual conditions encountered during construction. Unanticipated subsurface
conditions commonly occur and cannot be prevented by performing reconnaissance or
explorations. Such unexpected conditions frequently require additional expenditures to
achieve a properly constructed project. If conditions encountered during construction
appear to be different from those indicated in our previous report, our office should be
notified.
Sincerely,
GEOSPECTRUM CONSULTANTS, INC.
c
aures A. Doolittle
Principal Engineer
Attachment: Figure 1
dist: 1/Addressee
Project No. 12-110-01 Page 2
I
F-
Cn
'IV
'IV AV
G 0
0
0
Anz qb
I
2
ref.—Drawing SK1.2, Nelson Residence,
Prepared by Prentiss Architects,
Print Date 09.26.13, Reduced Scale: 1 "=20' HOT TUB BUFFER & SETBACK
Hot Tub Site Evaluations
723 Hanna Park Road
i Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No.1 2-110 1 Date 10/13 1 Figure
C P C.
d
ow
Rz
bWy
Cn
'IV
'IV AV
G 0
0
0
Anz qb
I
2
ref.—Drawing SK1.2, Nelson Residence,
Prepared by Prentiss Architects,
Print Date 09.26.13, Reduced Scale: 1 "=20' HOT TUB BUFFER & SETBACK
Hot Tub Site Evaluations
723 Hanna Park Road
i Edmonds, Washington
Proj. No.1 2-110 1 Date 10/13 1 Figure
Z* I ->IS
V/N E I OTLT'60
.00
'SL M.00.M00 S -
."o
Qo
:0
I
0
NOW
MAM
s o aos eeenz-s oz ie ssl Ae
o i e s s i u a i d
SNoi-Lvin:)IV:) 3DvA)ins snoIAd3dWl
30N3(]IS38 NN3N
w
OAF
R
17T
w
W to �Vll
100,
'YO
.4,
14
0 13
<
LL LL
LU
V) cr,
Ln a G�
o
V3
Oe
V)
Z)
0
V
>
aj
uj
U Lu
< >
LL
0
<
V) U
V)
0 :)
00
>
< a�
LU5
z
0
>-
k
0
Q�
L6
U.]
cc
0
o.
CL
Q�
CL
Lu
V)
LU
LU
LU
w0
CL
CL
<
UJ o
CL
013-0
z
®w
Eu
®W
V,
za:
LU
�
:D
cc
LU
ce
CL
(y
�
LU
D
LU
LU
CY
0
CY
cza) 6
LU
cc 6
a:z
zw
w
w0
I- t,,
F-
F-
d
-X
LU ;1-
X=
<=
2 '?
0
o
0 0�
o cl�
LL,
C�
0 U,
0 LL,
sy
u
m CL
W to �Vll
100,
'YO
.4,
14
0 13
<
LL LL
U-
af
V) cr,
Ln a G�
o
V3
Oe
V)
Z)
0
V
>
aj
uj
U Lu
< >
LL
0
<
V) U
V)
0 :)
00
>
< a�
LU5
UJ UJ
0
U
Q�
L6
o.
LUD
Lu
V)
LU
LU
w0
CL
a- o
UJ o
CL
013-0
®w
Eu
®W
V,
za:
V)
"n
ce
CL
(y
u
LU
LU
'L'U' 6
cza) 6
'wn 6
cc 6
fA ul
w
L�,
I- t,,
F-
F-
:D U
F- 0
u
u
o
o
0 0�
o cl�
LL,
C�
0 U,
0 LL,
Z:
m CL
x CL.
X CL
W to �Vll
100,
'YO
.4,
14
0 13
LU
u
<
LL LL
U-
af
V) cr,
Ln a G�
D
V3
Oe
V)
Z)
0
V
>
aj
uj
U Lu
< >
LL
0
<
V) U
V)
0 :)
00
>
< a�
LU5
UJ UJ
0
u
Ln
U. z 03
LU
u
<
LL LL
U-
af
V) cr,
Ln a G�
D
V3
Oe
V)
Z)
0
LU
>
aj
uj
U Lu
< >
LL
0
<
V) U
V)
0 :)
00
>
< a�
LU5
UJ UJ
0