22810 96TH PL W.PDF/ 11111.1111111
9518
22810 96TH PL W,
0 0
ADDRESS: cz-2gjo - q&94 a, o
TAX ACCOUNT/PARCEL NUMBER: 0 0 el-3 7 q L106 6105 -00
BUILDING PERMIT (NEW STRUCTURE):
COVENANTS (RECORDED) FOR:
CRITICAL AREAS: DETERMINATION: 0 Conditional Waiver Xstudy Re . quired [] Waiver
DISCRETIONARY PERMIT #'S:
PARKING AGREEMENTS DATED:
EASEMENT(S) RECORDED
PERMITS (
PLANNING DATA CHECKLIST DATED:
SCALED PLOT PLAN DATED: r11-11
SEWER LID FEE $: LID'#:
SHORT PLAT FILE: _zz LOT: �5� BLOCK:
SIDE SEWER AS BUILT DATED:
SIDE SEWER PERMIT(S) #:
SOILS REPORT DATED:
STREET USE / ENCROACHMENT PERMIT #:
WATER METER TAP CARD DATED:
OTHER:
LATEMP\DST's\Fonns\Street File Cheeklist.doc
C
0--�
PLANNING DATA
NAME: Y!&e!9 C41 M 41,4%:�-P DATE: LAID-911PID15
SITE ADDRESS: 5ki 0 -41 tp7h pl, W !i PLAN CHK#:--Q
PROJECT DESCRIPTION: MZ-W -9;PI2-.
REDUCED SITE PLAN PROVIDED?&I No�
MAP PAGE:- CORNER LOT: FLAG LOT: ()Les to
ZONING: CRITICAL AREAS DETERMINATION 01) 1 g if
Study Required- It r%.,A- ^I . .1-P
Ll Waiver -fop
Conditional Waiver (F;
+ 0,yj e
.;, I tr, q*1
SEPA DETERMINATION:
LJ Fee
LJ Checklist
Ll APO list w/ notarized form
0 (Needed for 500 cubic yards of grading, Shoreline Area- site within 200 ft- of Puget Sound or Lake Ballinger)
0 Exempt I A o wot (/ yea rd ep of oy-,adivij pYt)p.o1-7t4 .
SETBACKS:
Required Setbacks:
N6 StreeF� �L-ok Side: 4 51 ftM Side: Rear:_ -.I 61
Actual Setbacks:
Street: L� 1�- "ft.-Side: I 1�'—Right Side: Rear:
Street map checked for additional setback required? -AA-)-)
DETACHED STRUCTURES: NDAe Sylow-VI
ROCKERIES: � " 4-.'itc� play)
UJ FENCE SITRELLI SES:
U, BAY WINDOWS I PROJECTING MODULATION:
Ll STAIRS I DECKS: --Flmev--c- A Z�4 -+
PARKING- Required: Actual: Z)
LOT AREA:
LOT COVE
Calculations: 2.14 4-Q & i
BUILDING HEIGHT: "A;
Datum Point:-.M 410 ftif, 4� 4 �2 Datum Elevation:
6:
Maximum Allowed:-2113 I (' JL(p. q �- 15) Actual Height:_ Lj I kv
A-D.U. CREATED?: & Yes
SUBDIVISION: f— 2,001 - -1,-Z-
LEGAL NONCONFORMING LAND USE DETERMINATION ISSUED: (Yes 160-1)
OTHER:
2>9 1
BS9-6
E; (P'4 4
01 15-
AVR,Y-61 e--
(A,ra 3Z )
Plan Review By:
+ irni+z-
NewBPP1ann1ngDataForrn-D0C
(6.9,2/15
ax Hi5i5vli-)
1,1 11 ... 11 4 , . I
E.Dj,
CITY OF EDMONDS WATERLINE AS -BUILT
JADDRESS-
ta 22810 96TH PL W
PERMIT
No- BLD20051121
CONTRACTORi HOMEOWNER, SCALE,
CAJUN EXCAVATION I REGAL HOMES I NTS
DATE INSPECTED, INSPECTED BYi DATE DRAWN, DRAWN BY,
01-27-2006 1 JH 1 08-15-07 J.TRIEU
05/431/2001 10:47 4257789086 MIGHLL UUNbl r_kV.1M 04
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
May 17, 2001
STREET FILE
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 212"' St. S.W., #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Clarification Top And Too -Of -Slope
9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report clari the geotechnical issues regarding top -of -slope
and toe -of -slope with regard to the Michel Construction, Inc. property at 9601 Edmonds
Way, Edmonds, Washington.
REFERENCES:
Location and topographic map by LSA dated January 17,.2001
*Geotechnical evaluation and foundation recommendations by D. Bruce, P.E.
dated April 30, 2001
Proposed plans by Michel Construction, Inc.
Site photographs
OEQTECHNICAL SLOPE ISSUES:
As previously discussed in the April 30, 2001 geotechnical report, the overa . 11
property consists of a lower zone, along with an upper zone.
A relatively steep "bluff-faicie" distinguishes the lower zone from the upper zone.
This engineer has performed on site geotechnical investigations and analysis of
the site soil conditions. Based on geotechnical engineering criteria, the top -of -slope and
toe -of -slope were staked and delineated. These delineations were plotted as indicated
on the LSA site/topographii: map.
This engineer understands that discussions with City of Edmonds planner and
language interpretations of the City of Edmonds Code - have resulted in differing or
confusing designations for top -of -slope and toe -of -slope.
.1
The purpose of the Edmonds Code (20. 1 6B, 060-C) is to designate a "steep
slope hazard area" based on percentage of ground inclination. Careful reading of
Section C results in a clear definition of the Code defines as percentage of slope. The
SOILS - FOUNDA I IONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION s DRAINAGE , DESIGN A PERMI'T , LECAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
05/3,1/2001 10: 47 4257789086 MIUHLL UUNbl
City'of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
May 17, 2001
Page 2
f1m=_ VID
language within Section C does not specify precisely where the top -of -slope and toe -of -
slope are located.
No code language could establish a toe or top -of -slope in that geotechnical
criteria impact this designation. Each specific site contains its own inherent
geotechnical conditions.
Attempts at survey plotting, or map interpretation, or language/semantic
interpretation are no match for site specific geotechnical analysis.
As previously stated, the apparent ubluff-face" area is the geotechnical issue of
relevance.
As previously discussed. this "bluff-facen is not the result of any inheren't geo, ogic
or geotechnical instability. Rather, it is simply the result of historic gravel exc6ation
activities along Edmonds Way.
. Thus, this engineer stands behind and re -declares the top-of-slop6 and toe -of -
slope to be those lines plotted on the LSA site map.
RESOL TION:
This engineer strongly recommends an on site meeting with owner, City of
Edmonds planners and engineers, and.this engineer to clarify the precise locations of
top -of -slope and toe -of -slope. Such an on site meeting would deal with the reality of the
site, versus map interpretations or code language confusion.
SUMMARY:
a Top -of -slope and toe -of -slope are geotechnical issues.
The top and toe -of -slope have been geotechnically staked and delineated on the
LSA site map,
0 On site meeting to resolve any remaining confusion.
05/,31/2001. 10:47 4257789086
MICHEL UUNbl
0
r m %.,j r- U,
'City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
May 17, 2001
Page 3
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
DMB:abj
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
-6 , j i t,; a szr% ;ng%ar
6)_0 0
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Enginee—r
April 30, 2001
RECEIVED'
MAY 0- 1 2001
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
7907 212th St. S.W., #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Foundation Recommendations
Proposed Ten Single Family Residences
9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
eight building lots at 9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
required due to owner/developer concerns as well as City of Edmonds requi�e'ments.
REFERENCES:
• Location and topographic map by LovelkSauerland & Associates dated January
17,2001
• Site plans
• Site photographs
BACKGROUND:
The overall property consists of approximately 3.46 acres and has never been
developed.
The property consists of a lower zone (proposed Lot Nos. 9 & 10) along
Edmonds Way, and an upper zone consisting of the proposed eight (8) lot single family
residence development with cul-de-sac access.
A relatively steep "bluff -face" distinguishes the lower zone from the upper zone.
It is understood that historic gravel excavation and mining occurred north of Edmonds
Way creating the over -steepened apparent "bluff -face" (see survey topographic map for
specific bluff face delineation).
Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: no slides, no settlements, no shifting, no soil creep, nor any erosional
degradation were observed.
The property immediately to the west consists of a gasoline service station and
carwash. The service station has utilized a rockery along the base of the "bluff -face! to
SOILS I- FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shofeline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 2
provide erosion stability. No evidence of any geotechnical distress was observed along
the neighboring rockery.
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to install a 'roadway access
(from the upper zone) extending 9e Ave. W and developing eight single family
residence lots (see site plan).
Additionally, the lower zone is to be developed into two lots (Lots No. 9 and 10)
for service station expansion and/or church parking lot expansion (to be determined).
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test holes
were hand dug by this engineer on April 2, 2001 for the proposed upper eight (8) lots. A
total of eight (8).test holes were dug. All hand dug test holes revealed similar; subgrade
conditions, namely:
07 to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt
6" to approx. 14" Light brown/reddish-brown sandy loam.
Grading to sandy silt
14" to approx. 38" Increasingly dense sandy silt/weathered
(bottom of test hole) glacial till (hard pan).
No water was encountered in any of the eight test holes. All test hole walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
No test holes were dug in the lower zone (Lots 9 and 10). This, lower zone has
functioned as a parking area on extremely dense, compacted gravels.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically approved for the
proposed Michel Construction eight (8) unit single family residences with road access
(upper zone), subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. -
Setback distances (Lots 6, 7, and 8): A nominal setback distance of twenty (20)
feet from top -of -slope may be used for preliminary house siting purposes.
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 3
Specific geotechnical recommendations may reduce this nominal setback
distance once final house plans are provided this engineer.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall YU) j , T'11
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified' by this engineer. FLr-
For retaining wall design, use frictio R 'and passive pressure of 350
factor of/ 5
p-c.f.
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structure can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See thelater sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structu'ral Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and Individual
spread footings should have ' minimum widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-folur (24)
inches, respectively, and should be bottomed at least eighteen (18) inches below the
lower adjacent finish ground surface.
. . Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over.
excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For
G.L.C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of
a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
Footin4s- constructed according tolthe above recommend I ations may be designed
for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per square foot
(p.s.f.). A one-third increase in this design bearing pressure may be used when
considering short-term wind or seismic loads. For the above design criteria, it is
anticipated that total. post -construction settlement of footings founded on competent,
native soils (or on structural fill up to five (5) feet in thickness) will be about one-half
inch, with differential settlements on the order of one -quarter inch.
Lateral loads due to wind or seismic forces may be resisted by fr . iction between
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the foundations
must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill placed around the
outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We recommend the following
design values be used for the foundation's resistance to lateral loading:
-Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 4
Parameter
Coefficient of Friction
Passive Earth Pressure
Where:
Design Value
0.5�/'
'350 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic Foot.
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
We recommend that a safety factorof at least 1.5 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent nati ' Ve soils or
on. structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
can, be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We
also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the
slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches*for sealing purposes.
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The fdllowing
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height. which
restrain level backfill:
Parameter
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
Design Value
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
125 p.c.f.
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
.April 30, 2001
Page 5
For restrained walls which, cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform, lateral pressure of one hundred (1100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.'
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need
to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
foundation walls within a distance equal to the height of the wall, unless the walls are
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Placement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backirill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining oGf �a�dafion �walls)
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
no more than fiv6(5� _Perdeiif ii it*- 6 r--d-I a- y`paiticl_&!� -"an- d have no particles greater than
four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve should
be between twenty-five (25) and seventy 170) percent. -Due to their high silt content, if
the native soils are used as bacei - I . I a drainage composite, sucli-as Mira*fi and
Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage composites
should be hydraulically, connected to the foundation drain system. The'purpose of these
backfill requirements is to assure that the design criteria for the retaining wall as not
exceeded because of a build-up of hydrostatic pressure behind the wall. The
subsection entitled 'General Earthwork and Structural Fill cont ains recommendations
regarding placement and compaction of structural fill behind retaining and foundation
walls.
EXCAVATION AND SLOPES:
In no case should excavation slopes be greater than the limits specified in local,
state and national government safety regulations. Temporary cuts up to a height of
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 6
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four.-O)JO-qt,the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1:1
(Horizontal:Vertical)_ from.1he-top. of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnicall engineer, excavation cuts may be
modified for site conditions. All perma- hent cuts into native soils should be inclined no
steeper than 2:1 (H:V). fill slopes should not exceed 1;1 (H:V). It is important to note
that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made
aware of this potential hazard.
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary
or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an
appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
The apparent "bluff -face" reveals extremely dense, glacially compacted,
uhardpan" soils. The slope cut is geotechnically stable, and requires no additional
retaining or stabilization measures. Some select grading/trimming is recommended to
remove occasional zones of overburdened soils. This engineer envisions slight
grading/trimming to achieve a more uniform slope face.
If desired, a toe -of -slope stabilization wall may be utilized to prevent ongoing
erosional sloughing. Ecology block, rockery, or key stone block may be utilized along
the base of slope. Specific designs by this engineer recommended. -
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches o one -inch -minus washed
rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar
material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as
the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. 'All roof and surface
water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain
No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of . the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded.so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the -tops --of slopes. Water should'not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, br -: pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
Mr. Rob M'chel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 7
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material.. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture co tent at or
I
near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The. moisture content of fill
soils is very important and must be closely controlled during the filling and compaction
process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, compaction
equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the' lift. In no case should the
lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The following table presents
recommended relative compaction for structural fill:
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative
Compaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways . 95%
Behind retaining walls
90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
Subgrade, 90% below that level
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
9 .0
- Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 8
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content.
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
upumping" from. construction equipment traffic when the moisture content is greater than
the optimum moisture content.
Ideally, structural fill which is to be placed in wet weather should consist of a
granular soil having no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles. The percentage
of particles passing the No. 200 sieve should be measured from that portion of the soil
passing the three -quarter -inch sieve.
. The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material ' may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
. I No drainage problems were evident with the approximately three and one-half (3
1/2) acre site at 9601 Edmonds Way. Surface runoff flows generally southerly following
the native topography. Compliance with standard storm water detention methods in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirements,are geotechnically acceptable.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.15B.110:
This engineer has reviewed Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
regarding exemption criteria.
This engineer believes that the property at 9601 Edmonds Way qualifies for such
exemption.
The proposed Michel Construction development will not decrease stability on
any adjacent property and the site following the permitted activity. The site itself
and adjacent property will be stable within the meaning Of chapter 19.05 ECDC,
as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the state
building code as adopted by this Code. Key geotechnical inspection by this
engineer to verify.
.,Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April.30, 2001
Page 9
The steep slope portions of this property are mapped as the follow , ing deposits
on the "Geologic Map of the East and Part of the Edmond's West Quadrangels"
by James P.. Minard (Department of the Interior U.S.G.S. 1983, Map MF-1 541):
till.
* No excavations will occur on the steep slopes.
No retaining structures are necessary nor envisioned on the steep slopes. As -
discussed, an erosion stabilization rockery may be utilized at the base -of -slope.
This erosion stabilization structure is not necessary nor is considered a retaining
structure.
None of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the
property classified,as a steep slope: impermeable soils inter -bedded with
granular soils, springs or ground water seepage, significant visible evidence of
ground water seepage, previous landslide or instability, or existing landslide
deposits.
The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or soils
exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the standard penetration test (ASTIVI
D 1586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject
properties classified as a steep slope do not exceed three (3) feet.
Thus, the property qualifies for exemption.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc,)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2.sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
• Soil cuts
• Foundation subgrade verification.
• Retaining wall, or rockery placement
• Any fill placement
• Subsurface drainage installation
10:�1:9eulal 10 f: 41
Mr. Rob Michel
M ichel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 10
SUMMARY:
The proposed Michel Construction, Inc. ten lot development of eight single family
residences at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically viable when constructed in
accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds
approved plans'and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PLANS:
As discussed, the proposed eight lot development is geotechnicehy viable. It Is
essential, however, that this engineer review final plans for the upper eight houses, as
well as any development on the lower portion of the property_prior to permit issuance.
This final geotechnical review will allow for verification of -geotechnicall criteria to be
made. Recommendations or plan modifications to improve. geotechnical compliance
may also occur upon final review.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface Conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
ra—vwsm im-TOM
DMB:abj
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
PERMIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
i4vkA-r=S b-C
MAILING ADDRESS
SS010 1.1, 4�_� <; +
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
'. VVaS7 Ixuq 1 `42; - zi o --T-k o
'NAME
- RWE -DE S 1 L4
'ADDRESS
91+1-+ 6S-f1,, NE
CITY IT-ELEPHONE
,MA-"<VjLLF_ 1�1101160,b`59'33
PERMIT
NUMBER
JOB
ADDRESS
. 1�
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCPApproved
RW Pennit Required
street use Permit Required
EXISTING PROPOSED
inspection Required
Sidewailk Required
REQUIRED DEDICATION _ FT
Underground
wiring required
METER SIZE
LINE SIZE
NO. OF FIXTURES
PRV REQUIRED
1 111
2_ D
YES 13 NO CI
REMAR S
OWNFRICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
SAVC As
ADDRESS
MdP -)W" 5T'��Vj
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
qgj11 . &-1 0 1
I)d I � , Ift --16470
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE- I C.HelfRfty
'I, !1- 11 /1 . I I I
Er6*t- 4L 4-i-EiA cl
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
007-;37.9 0000-5-00
NEW
RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH
COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR
ADDITION
0
MIXED USE CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
MULTIFAMILY 0 SIGN
REPAIR
�R G FENCE
CYDS x -FT.
DEMOLISH
OTHER
�TANK
GARAGE
CARPORT
RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
'ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
`(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS O� ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
�;10&4 1E -W) Ly �-Ez1xDew;F
r
NUMBER
OF
NUMBER OF
I DWELLING
STORIES
UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
. _'(2
I/
191, W
HEAT SOURCE SLOPE VESTED DATE
oqwsr) 12LA8MA +Sf
'Ml�EERING REVIEWED BY DATE
-T%� m ILZ
DATE
FIRE REVIEWED BY
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION SEPA
REQ'D COMPLETED I EXEMPT
113 YES ON
CA# ZONE SIGN AREA HEIGHT
ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
WAIVER 13 1
STUDY A -t-x 5
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (FV
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT St RE% L/R SIDE JEAR
Vj
W V14 W97W/e/k 5
PARKING LOTAREA DATE
OV I PLANNING REVIEWED BY
REO'D IDED ;d I
IF, 5
REMARKS
Z_ I kA It
TYPVIgSTRUCTION rr�,�E OCCUPANT
GROUP
Q
P TION CQU,`iIJLTANT OCCUPANT
SPECIAL INS YES LOAD
REQUIRE
REMARKS
GEOTECH REPORT
STRUC�U=l
fjr
3D
BY:
VALUATION
q
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
-::a,
Building Permit
City Surcharge
C
Base. Fee
PLAN CHECK NO: 3�514
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PER MIT COVERS WORII TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBIC
DONMAIN (CURBS. SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Grading
.1 eview
.14
PERMIT APPLICATION: SEE ECDC 19,00-005(A)(5)
—
PERMIT LIMIT: SEE ECDC i9.00.005(A)(6)
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Engr. Inspection
*APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR , HE i R,SObUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESSORS
IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNWY,�DtFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PE�Mllr. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDIjCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.*
Fire Review
Fire Inspection
Landscapeinsp.
Recording Fee
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
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-
WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
TION; AND IN DOING THE ING TO
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELAT
WORKMEN'S,9020NNsATION 18:27.
_NURA)PE AND RCW
CALL
FOR INSPECTION
(425)
To . . - I
OAT ED
Plan Chk. Deposit F 11 7,��
Receipt #
Jotal Amt. Due
Receipt#
APPLICATION APPRQVAL
This application is not a permit until signed by the
Building official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged in space provided.
:2 71-or
771-0220 REL E
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 IBC`1110 / IRC1110.
4AIAA POP.Qq WARn - YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
ORIGINAL - FILE YELLOW - INSPECTC
PINK -OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
0:
wirl
01
z
R I ]"HT-OF-INAY CONSTRUCT,'ON P"P��'.T
C.. Aa I
Aj-qu m3rtu I IUN
LOT COVERA PROECT INFORMA INSPECTIONS REQ'D. HEIGHT CALQUI 77ONS.,
NOTED pRopERTy ADDRE- 8 TH Pt A40N 4: J93.K SITE PLAN
.S- 220996 w
BUILDING LOT- 11616 ED D S. WA
PROPOSED SFR. 4 79SF Bl"YENG1 LERING owER. REGAL HomEs LLc, 2306 1 ig TH slREE, T sw, EVERETT WA B.- 39jx
(21.3%) ATIN. MARKOLIIAS, PRESIDENT 425-299-508 91511MOONTACT OLYMPIC VIEW. jgi* LOT 5
LEGAL DESCRIPRON. SECTON 36, TOWSHIP 27, RANGE J. NE QUAR7mWATER /SEWER DISTRIC-P.- o - --6 a; Ct -B
K ELISE BLK 000 D-00 LOT 5
T E- 369.3'
NOVEMBER 23. 2005
PARca 10. 0007900000500 TOTAL: 156Z7^= 391.X%EAN
pLklr6Lk6tA+-
-V5&62' L4 + 250
416.'& MAX. C,
;Ro — — — — — — Z5' BSBt — — — — — — I
'T�Apca-vlows e4LC S
v �2-560vz
4 L
& f 01.
-ack,
4�
'ro
'xil o5 250-sr- z�
v
RIO, W/
394 3-qmsF-
z PZ FF=JgJ.5 27367
othCr -4 A BOTTOM OF F0077NG=389
LOT 5 FEXPIRES: 11/05/07
PREPARED 8 Y-
SF DONt4A L. BRESKE. P.E.
6621 FOSTER SLOUGH RO.
SNOHOMISH. WA 98290
PHONE. 425-334-9980
GARAGE FF=J91 FAX. 425-334-7380
SL48 ON GRADE breske*consultmoore. com
Al
DA 7UM POINT DETAIL
SCALE 1=40'
LOT 5 & 1-1 > / / % >
11,616 SF SrrE TBM v �� \Xl
CIR. UD OF SAMAW SEWD? AMMIK)LE U TIL ESM T
IN CUL-DE SW ELEV. J86.49' D
LOT 6 7
>
Av
tK- 2005
-6
4)P
BUp DING DEPARTME1
OF EDI,\,�ONDS
20 40
A RqVED NIN
BY PLAN
-p o D G5,
I -STREET FILE
- -----------
967H K ---- %4�
1 inch 20 ft.
Aift,
Citypf Edmonds Permit No,
RIGHT-OF-WAY CONSTRU 41T Issue Daie:
A. Address or Vicinity of Construction: n8lo !q rL
8 4. Type of Work (be specific): Dow w" OAS±ix
ho 11:Rh4i:, OnMc�s
C. Contractor: 'PIE-6 A-L HIAAFC, �- � (- Contact: M A-9� L_ I I t'+-�
Mailing Address: VJI Phone: e, 0
State License nAL A-L q wori Liability Insurance: tA ILL Bond: $_ 1'2,00C_-�
City Business License #: W_I�a
D. Building Permit # (if applicable): /c?-/ Side Sewer Permit # (if applicable): 6) VbQ
E. F� Commercial E] Subdivision El City Project 0 EUC (PUD, VERIZON, PSE, COMCAST, OVWSD)
Multi -Family Single Family M Other
INSPECTOR: hA JJ
F. PAVEMENT CUT: El YES N,O-- G. SIZE OF CUT x
CONCRETE CUT: , El YES NO
G. F� Mail Approved Permit Call for Pickup
APPLICANT TO READ AND SIGN
INDEMNITY. Applicant understands by his/her signature to this application helshe holds the City of Edmonds harmless from
injuries, -damages or claims of any kind or description whatsoever, foreseen or unforeseen, that may be made against the City of
Edmonds or any of its departments or employees, including but not limited to the defense of any legal proceedings including defense
costs and attorneyfees by reason ofgranting this permit.
THE CONTRACTOR IS RESPONSIBLE FOR WORKMANSHIP A" MATERIALS FOR A PERIOD OF ONE YEAR FOLLOWING THE FINAL
INSPECTION AND ACCEPTANCE OF THE WORK ESTIMATED RESTORATION FEES WILL BE HELD UNTIL THE FINAL STREET PATCH IS
COMPLETED BY CITY FORCES, AT WHICH TIME A DEBIT OR CREDIT WILL BE PROCESSED FOR ISSUANCE TO THE APPLICANT.
* Traffic control and public safety shall be in accordance with City regulations as required by the City Engineer. Every
flagger must be trained as required by (WAC) 296-155-305 and must have certification verifying completion of the
required training in their possession.
* Restoration is to be in accordance with City codes. All street -cut trench,mork shall be patched with asphalt or City -
approved material prior to the end of the workday - NO EXCEPTIONS.
* Three sets of construction drawings of proposed work are required with the permit application.
CALL DIAL -A -DIG (1-800-424-5555) PRIOR TO BEGINNING WORK
I HA VE READ ABOVE STA6�M�E�NTS AND UNDERSTAND THE PERMIT REQUIREMENTS AND ACKNOWLEDGE
THA 7,'1 MUS A PERMITAVAILABLE ALL
Signat (Contractor or Agent) bate: 17A)os
REQUIRED INSPECTIONS:
Call 425- 771-0220, Ext. 1326for a 24-hour
FINAL APPROVAL OF PERMITTED WORK:
Signature
request line.
-7
"DATE:
CADocurnents and Settings\CurtisNy Documcnts\Fonns\Engnrng\ROWpennit—.doc Revised 10/01/03