20000763.pdfDATE RECEIVED
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
IER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
IND ADDRESS
5r
ZIP I TELEPHONE
ADDRESS
-710 7 -,7 /4�0 5
CITY "P ITELIPH NE
(nz�y_c PIA-17m
NAME
ADDRESS
:Z%97
CITY ZIP I TELEPHONE
LICENSE
ioyz
NEW
RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING I VIEC.
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
REMODEL
APARTMENT
F]
SIGN
REPAIR
YGE
0
IENCE X FT)
DEMOLISH
TANK
C)
OTHER
GARAGE
CARPORT
rl RETAINING WALL
RENEWAL
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS
NUMBER
NUMBER OF
DWELLING
OF
STORIES
I UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
[PERMIT EXPIRES
U SE 3�6
ONE PERMIT -3
NUMBER
JOB ELI
ADDRESS
;76 P- Iltr- r
PLAT NAMEISUB011WON NO IID NO.?",7
,5, q,
LOT NO. LID FEE S
W,�p P ....... 1j.
PUBLIC RIGHT OFWAY PER.11rIA,, R p.
EXISTING - PRO .S G�
REQUIRED DEDICATION- IT -
LINE
E'
IIINIARI(S
OWNERICONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
5-
FIRE REVIEWED By DATE
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE OR ADB�
INSPEC�ION
RE G
SO
I PO�NTED
YESQ b(NO
_____�EFA -REVIEW
�SIGN4�EA
HEIGHT
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED PROF ED
-�p I
I
LOT COVERAGE
REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.)
SETBACKS (FT.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED
FRONT SIDE REAR
POPOSED
PONT UPSIDE REAR
_16% 15%
1 2_15 1 401 29
'25 1 2-5,112-04
PARKING I
LOT AREA
DATE
PM
REQ'G I PROVIDED
I / 9
CHECKED By YPE OF C NI.;VC ION C#�E_ 1 0 CUHNNT
GROUP I
W7f�-U ---I C�CACDUPANT
A
SPECIALINgYTEOR JAR�,,6
FE.0 ED B C2, IL
REMA KS
DRnrRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 1081FINAL INSPECTII
VALUATION
FEE
I (R, (a
PLAN CHECK FEE
C E LOTSLO
BUILDING
5,�X ocy QtS5 I V".1
PLAN CHECK NO: ESTED DATE
PLUMBING
or :359
MECHANICAL
THIS PERMIT AUTHORI�ES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
BE .11E ON PRIVATE PROPER I ..- Ally CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
GRADING/FILL
DOMAIN 'CU..B,.,.EWAI.KS,T U
DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.1 WILL REQ [RE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
STATE SURCHARGE
PERM ITAPPLICATI N: 18DIDAYS
PERM'
PERMIT LIMIT: 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK 15 STARTED WITHIN IBODAYS
EA
ENG REVIEW FEES
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
P
-A PLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
PPL
ENG. INSPECTION FEE
------------
IN INTEREST AGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY F
F
M FROM
I EDMONDS, WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS ANYAND
ALLCLAIMS FOR DAMAGESOIWHATEIER NATURE. ARISING DIREC r LYORINDIR15CILY
OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT S.ALL NOT .5
DEPOSIT
RECEII
FROM THE ISSUANCE
DEENEDTo MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REOUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Y WAIVE 01
PLAN q9lCK
OR LIMIT IN ANY WAYTHE CITY'S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.'
No
RECE
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE
IHEREB ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION! THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTH.RIZEO AGENT OF
I- �� - . -A -I'l �, �, -
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC
BE
CALL
.-I, - F - P,,.d...d
TION: AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL EMPLOYED
CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RE LATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
SpIll pl.vld,d
I N VIOLATION OF THE LABOR
woRKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
OFFIC LSS%NATURE DATE
SIG A7 N
(425)
771-0220
L ASEDBY DATE
ATTEIWON
EXT 333
1p
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 771-0221
If
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
ORIGINAL FILE, YELLOW INSPECT R/
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
FAX
PINK OWNE GOLD - ASSESSOR
�198
z
m
a rn
c 0
m 0
-1 C)
0 C::
-4 m
x rn
M z
r- -4
co
o -n
n
m M
0-
00,
0
c m
C . I
.0
z
z
-4
cl)
z
0
1
0
IT,
5"jCMf' 99.0% w/ :115 F-VEL F-NO
From! vgq4*?�V%
a3 #1, TYFE I
uf, KUN
PFF
5,1z' f-.'
GE 249.60
IF- 24ro.roo
IE 246.6 E)
% TAR
IF- 246 0
'040
RO
SED
z,
IDE
10,
2
- .1 -
475 .50'
199.27
Ln
126-
PLOT PLAN,
SCALE: 1" 20'
DRAINAGE PLAN
AUG 18 2000
APPROVED
OF K sp. (3
Tva 2 -
A
71
'02 M
M 00
M
Ez
0 -n
m T
010
Cc: Fn
C04
Z ro
-4
Z�
z
0
g
0
M
— -----------
10 tHEb-OCUMENT'IN THIS MAME is L:ESg'6LE;kFzTHM TkS NOTICE
NOTICE:
OCUMENT.
IT IS DUE TO THE QUAUTY OF THE D
.oz = A:]lVDs NVId SIOVNIVNG
N NVJd 10 d Li
r�� ro To 119 Izz
'P QD G)
-bs 89-lzz,'l
101
22
71
J. au AHN
J0191=10 ja s'
ausoOH'Id
CD
C)
C)
N
41
7M7,
cb)
C�
N to N ro r\) M
(31 0
.xl i.t fOrj -10
X.w" . 0� 0 i
NVIdLLdVJ,:)UNV I
70's
------ ILVANJ) V 1,961
a 0 Oz=j.
OZ_'A
00 Z=
Z
if le,
--- -------
/ ---------------
9
low
1 -00. eqvo 11
-mr!
O.al"19
---------------------------- — --------
00091
m a
IN I
. Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.&C.E., M.B.A. Geotachnical/ Civil Engineer
January 3, 2001
RECEIVED
City of Edmonds JAN 17 2001
c/o Michol Construction, Inc. DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTA
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102 CITY OF EDMOND�
Edmonds;, WA 98026
Subject: GeotechnIcal Inspections
17409, 17407, 17405 - 76th Avenue W., Edmonds
Short Plat No. S-98-121
This; engineering report presents the results of geotechnical inspections to date
for the three new single family residences constructed on Lots 2, 3 and 4 at 17409.
17407, 17405 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington, by Michel Construction.
BEfJJU'- N Q E S.
City of Edmonds approved project plans
Gcotechnical evaluaUon report by 0. Bruce, P.E., dated September 11, 2DOO
1NUy&Tl0N!jM
This engineer has performed on -site geotechnical inspections throughout
October, November and December of 2000 (see photographs).
The eastern most lot (Lot No. 4, 17405 - 76th Avenue W), encountered ground
water seepage upon site excavation in early October. This engineer worked with
project contractor to install a perimeter Intercept draln (see photos). Storm warter was
collected and diverted around the south property line, and discharged Into the existing
City of Edmonds storm water System.
Foundation subgrade soils were verified to meet 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity,
as anticipated by the geotechnical report.
Site "workability' required contractor to import large crushed rock as an
improved working surface.
The effective use of the subgrade rock, the intercept perimeter drain system,
and relatively good weather allowed the foundation work to proceed successfully.
Foundation tooting formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete were placed
properly for the foundation for the residence on Lot No. 4.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN A PERMIT - LEGAL
P.0 Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98156 - (206) 54&9217 - FAX 546-8442
I F�
0
4�
M
0 M
C
m
0
80
a
M
JD
>
01
m rn
0
0 Fn
c: (a
171 0
z
Z
0
m
01/17/2oei ie:34 425776�UHb
MiUHtL UUN.1
Michel Construction, 17405, 17407, 17409 -76th Avenue W
Page two
RECEfV,
JAN 1 7 2001
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Lot No. 3 (17407 - 76th Ave W) also encountered ground water seepage,
although not as significant as Lot No. 4. Additional perimeter drains were utilized to
control groundwater seepage, As with Lot No. 4, Imported heavy crushed rock was
placed on foundation subgrade to improve overall workability,
Foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete were placed in accordance
with City of Edmonds approved project plans.
Lot No. 2 (17409 - 76th Ave W) did not encounter any significant ground water
seepage, A small amount of crushed rock was imported to improve site workability.
Foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete were properly placed in
accordance with City of Edmonds approved project plans.
Overall site siltation control and erosion protection are well maintained.
Contractor effectively has installed and maintains siltation fencing and straw bales,
The up slope (easterly) drainage system continues to off actively control
seepage water.
This engineer to continue to monitor and provide on -site geotachnical
Inspectiolls.
Site work, foundation preparation, and foundation installation have been
inE,pected and are geolechnically approved.
Ths engineer to continue to monitor si to geotechniCal work.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
DMB:vlb 1EXP"* IRE=
Dennis M. Bruce. P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
Z
0
M
0�-
0'
0
x M.
mz�
C 2
5 10
i
M M
0
0
0 Fn.
Z
Z
0
0
...... M
......
Vdt
4 . , 0
Project ReView Checklist
z:1
ProjectName: Oc-c- 4.q Plan Check#:
_7(Q e � f ( _(
Project Address: S�IJ Receipt Date:
Un derground Wiring Required
Hydraulics Permit
Plat/Subdivision Requirements
Street Dedications.
Easements - Public/Private
Storm Drain Review Feel
Engineering
Fee
460
Engineering 2.2 Inspection
POR4 1 8 4?0
,-Drainage Plan (On-sitg)
Line
k 61,
Setback. - Storm Drain
Open Ditch - Existing
Culvert Required�
Culvert ize
-Shoul Drainage/Shale Open Runoff
der
Catch Basin Required All X- IFF-(2/
Driveway Slope & Vehicle Access
Sidewalk Required AAP
Curb & Gutter Required
Curb Cut forbriveway Required
Street Pa ving Required
Rig . ht-of-Way Consim ction Permit Required Aic,
Bond Required for Public Improvements
FEMA Map Check/Water Table
Side� Sewer Availability V4.i
Z117 Ile
Calculate Sewer Fee if No LID#
Water Meter Size
water Meter Charge Required
Hydrant Required
Street Cut AM
Miscellaneous
RW Permit # Date Issued — Receipt #
—01 Receipt #
SS Permit Q Date Issued
M eter Size Paid S Date Receipt #
z
0
C: M
rn 0
0
80
C:
--I K
:r M
M Z
,01
C:
o -n
n
-4
x
M M
0 Fn
0
0 'M
C Cn
k C2
M
z
z
-4
M
CD
z
9
0
M
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address.
'i
Date: '7 - 1-7-
J
Inspector(s):
1. Datum Point: C tf
Z"
2, Datum Point Elevation: 7
3. Average Grade:� LI - d
-S
4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: (average grade) + 25'=
M
M 0,
-40
0 C
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
rn M,
2,1-,2�datflm elevation) +d �)A� ((grade to transit level fine sho t to house)
Z,
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:
MO
--7. S
M m,
Oy
0
m
C 0,1
K
m
z
Z,
0,
Total
m
1
elevation)
7. Actual Elevation: '(reference point (measurements
(.0 Ob
from #6)
Conclusion:
U-�b (actual) is greater /(fft—I-ffiajti t�(allo-ed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requiremenTlferECDC 16.20.30 requirements
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: FIR DEPARTMENT DATE
--ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE
—2L& ,
F--T—
PLANNING DIVISION DATE
PROJECT
srrE ADDRESS 1-7 5 -7 6�k OAj
PERmrr# A000-- oJJ.3—ADB# —DATEINSPECTED
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED F
(Ylaj.
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with approved plans. Final approval
denotes that there are no objections from the above signed Department to the release of
PERFORMANCE BONDS and the granting of:
�GLNT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL WITH CONDITIONS NOTED
u Copy of CONDITIONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FAILED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
c3 Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to owner/contractor by inspector
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date Si
ocaprvl.doc.l:temp:bldg:fomisIO/OI
z
0
i
0
M
M
rn
-10
00
C:
M
M Z
0
C
>
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C u)
9 U)
M 0
z
ch
z
0
i
0
M
FROM D.Bruce, P.E. Engineer
PHONE NO. 206 546 8442 Jul. 29 2002 il:39RM Pl
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotachnical /Civil Enginee—r
July 27, 2002 LE ; "" "l, L-)
AIL 2 9 2002
City.of Edmonds PERMIT COUNTER
clo Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 212'n St. S.W., #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Gubject: V- F uport / Geolechmeal inspections
C!V 7407,17409 76th Ave. W., Edmonds, Washington
Short Plat No. S-98-121
This engineering report presents the final results of geotechnical inspections for
the three single-family residences constructed on Lot Nos. 2, 3, and 4 (17409, 17407,
17405 �6h Ave. W.).
REFERENCES:
• City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
• Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E., dated September 11, 2000
• Inspection Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated January 3, 2001
• Photographs
INSPECTIONS I FINAL:
This engineer has performed on -site geotechnical Inspections for the three new
single-family residences constructed at the addresses above.
As previously stated in the January 3, 2001 Inspection Report, foundation work,
site clearing, soil bearing veriffication, drainage work, sub -grade preparation, and
residence foundations have been inspected, verified and approved.
Throughout 2001 and 2002 (to date), site work has consisted of residence
construction with minor grading and drainage efforts.
This engineer has inspected footing sub -grade drains, yard intercept drains,
slope preparation, rockeries and final grading.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P,C. Box 55W2 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
rrt�
=I w
Cal
0 'n;' I..
mm- 0
Z
M
FROM D. Bruce, P.E. Engir,eer
City of Edmonds
clo Michel Construction, Inc.
July 27, 2002
Page 2
PHONE NO. 206 546 8442 Jul. 29 2ee2 11:40AII P2
All rockedes have been inspected by this engineer: base course rock properly
embedded in the dense, native, sub -grade soils, rock linkage, rock batter, rock chinking
and drainage zones have been inspected and comply to ARC Standards.
Rockeries are geotechnically approved.
All sub -grade drainage and gutter downspout drainage have been properly "tied
In" to the approved storm drainage system.
CITY OF EDMONDS INSPECTION ITEMS:
1) Erosion Control, Excavation and ShQdng: All properly completed and
gootechnically approved (see January 3. 2001 Inspection Report).
2) Placement of Fill and Comnaction: As discussed in the January 3, 2001
Report, structural rock was imported under this engineer's on -site inspections
to create an improved working surface. All imported fill material is
geotechnically approved.
3) Soil Bearing Capacity: This engineer verified soil bearing capacity to meet a
minimum of 2,000 p.s.f.
4) Sub -surface Drainage : This engineer inspected, photographed and verified
the proper installation of sub -surface drainage (footing drains, tight line
connections, etc.) into the City of Edmonds approved storm water system.
Drainage approved.
5) Site Monitoring During Wet Weather: This engineer provided on -site
inspections during periods of rainy weather (including recommendations to
cease work, which was complied with). All work performed in accordance
with City of Edmonds approved Plans and normal, good geotechnical
practices.
COL4CLUSIONS:
• All special geotechnical inspection aspects have been properly completed and
are approved.
• Final erosion control measures (landscaping, grading, rockeries) have been
properly completed and are geotechnically approved.
L
Z!
9'�
0;
M;
a M
M
0
M"
M K,
C
Zi
0
-n
XM
� 0
oFn'
C
M
Z�
Z,
M
FROM D.Bruce, P.E. Engine— PHON� NO..'.,2p6 546 8442 Sul. 29 2602 il:40AM P3—
Citv of Edmonds
ZI
O�
%
m
c
i M
0 C
M
M Z,
Z,
C:
M M
'.03
C: cn�
M
z
C*
Z,
M"
T -1/
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
M.S.C.E., B.A.
September 11, 2000 1 VE:r)
SEP 13 2000
DEVELOPMENT SEFIVICES CTR.
CITY OF EDMONDS
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Lots 2, 3, and 4
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation
17409, 17407, 17405 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds
S-98-121
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
property at 17409, 17407 and 17405 - 76th Avenue West, Edmonds, Washington.
This evaluation was necessitated by City of Edmonds requirements.
R E F F= REND-95!
Vicinity Map (figure 1)
Site If drainage plan by John Mellor, P.E., approved by City of Edmonds
Engineer March 9, 2000 (copy in city file)
Geotechnical engineering report and steep slope evaluation by Nelson
Couvrette & Assoc., dated March 14, 1995 (copy in city file)
Site photographs (available)
BACK ROUND:
It is understood that Lots 2, 3, and 4 are part of an overall parcel containing Lot
No. 1 with existing residence, and Lots 2, 3, and 4 (see site map). This investigation
es. It is understood
deals with Lots 2, 3, and 4 with regard to geotechnical slope issu
that property owner wishes to construct single family residences on each of Lots 2, 3,
and 4. No development or construction has occurred on the lots to date.
Lots 2 and 3 gently slope to the west. Lot 4 contains a "flatter" portion, as well
as a more steeply sloped rear (easterly portion). Lots 2 and 3, and the flatter portion of
Lot 4 are densely vegetated with shrubs, bushes and trees (see photographs). The
steeper (easterly) portion of Lot 4 contains mature trees and shrubs.
SOILS . FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT . INSPECTION - DRAINAGE . DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. BOX 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 54&9217 - FAX 546-8442
el
Z11
0
-n
rn,
M
0-
M,
M
C —Z
o -n
n
rn rn
C)
0
o Fn:
C Cn!
C (A:
M 0
Z
z
z
rn,
Michel Construction
Page two
ASSUSMENT-L
While not within the scope of this evaluation, this engineer assessed the
existing residence on Lot 1 for any geotechnicall distress. No evidence of any
foundation settlements or shifting were observed. Visual assessments of Lots 2, 3,
and 4 by this engineer throughout the past year revealed no evidence of any
geotechnical distress: No sliding, no creep, no shifting, nor any significant erosional
degradation was observed on the overall property, including Lots 2, 3, and 4.
In order to augment existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were
dug (by backhoe) under this engineer's observation on September 11, 2000.
The findings of the three soil test pits (plotted on the site plan) were very similar,
namely:
9' to 6" Organics, roots, and black silt
6" to 16" Brown silty sand, moist, with silt lenses
16" to approx. 6' Dense to very dense grey sand with gravels
Ground water was encountered at three foot (3') depths in each of the three test
pits, All test pit walls remained vertical and stable throughout the excavated time
frame (approximately two hours).
CONCLUSIONS/11RECpM MEnDATIQVI-1
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, Lots 2, 3, and 4 are geotechnIcally approved for the proposed single
family residences, subject to the following conditions:
-Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
provided the drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
For retaining wall design, use a friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of
350 p.c.f.
The foundations for the proposed structures may be placed anywhere on Lots
2, 3, and 4, within the City of Edmonds setback distances.
i Z
0
0
1
0
0
C
m
M
M
_Z
>
(J)
0 -n
-n
M
0
0
rr,
;0
Z
Z
01
=! i
C.)
M
Michel construction
Page three
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer a�� any foundation concrete
placement.
The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and
spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above
native soils. See the later sub -section entitled r I
for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and,
individual spread footings should have —min—INIUM widths of eighteen (18) and twenty-
four (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 tooting width.
For 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.
Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be
designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of three thousand (3,000) pounds per
square foot (p.s.f.). A one-ftrcl 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 friction 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:
RAMMQ191
coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f
Z I
0
rn
0 M 1
C 0
MI
-0
C:
M M i,�:
Z
0 -n i
,n x
-4
M
OT
0
0 Fri
C W
r. Cn
A 'C'
z
Michel Construction
Pagetour
Where:
(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 factor of 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 native 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 RETAININra 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 following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height
which restrain level backfill:
Parameter D&tgaslawa
Active Earth Pressure* 30 p.c.f.
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
Where:
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
z
0
0
0 M
_0
M
M
Z
C 2
>
0
h
M M
0
0
0
z
z
Michel Construction
Page five
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. It these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backf ill is desired behind the walls, then we will
of the backfill in order to provide the
need to be given the wall dimensions and slope
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
I
designed for the additional lateral pressures resulting from the equipment. Pacement
and compaction of retaining wall backfill should be accomplished with hand -operated
equipment.
Retaining Wall Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should
contain no more than five (5) percent silt or clay particles and have no particles greater
than four (4) inches in diameter. The percentage of particles passing the No. 4 sieve
should be between twenty-f ive (25) and seventy (70) percent. Due to their high silt
content, if the native soils are used as backfill, a drainage composite, such as Mirafi
and Enkadrain, should be placed against the retaining walls. The drainage
aulically connected to the foundation drain system. the
composites should be hydr
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 Faq�� �ru_rLLIF
_JILcontains
recommendations regarding placement and compaction of structural till behina
retaining and foundation walls.
N PIES:
VA
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
four (4) leet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
ion no steeper than 11
height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclinat
T _7
0
0
0
M M
>
o -n
n Zii
M M
Or.
Z
z
0
Michel Construction
Page six
(Horizontal:Vertical) from the top of the slope to the bottom of the excavation. Under
specific recommendations by the geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts
may be modified for site conditions. All permanent 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.
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls.
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of 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 system.
Groundwater was observed in each of the three 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 and 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, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
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.
154;112 14; E I _R LIA; FRIN"LOMKI Elk' 193 1 RIMMUTILB-0-15 101; Cul M A V3 --
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.
A
Z
0 1 N�
I V
0
C ) I
A M.
C -Z
>
o -n P,
0
0 Fn
C C"�
C-
M
Z.
Z
Z
0
0
M
J
Michel Construction
Page seven
NOTE: Specific clearing limits to be established at pre,construction meeting with City
of Edmonds building officials and inspectors.
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 content at or
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 pLEBLE6120= Minimum Relati
QQM25-& =1
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).
use of On -Site Soils
It 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.
Z
0
M
-4 -n
XM
M
0 C
M MZ,
ID
a
Z
o -n.
rn M
0
0 C)
0 r- I -
M'
CA
M0
Z'
ck
Z
K
Michel Construction
Page eight
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
"pumping" 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 mav_ be. aQQgDjAb1kif the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS;
No drainage problems were evident on Lots 2, 3, and 4. Surface runoff flows
generally westerly into the existing drainage channel. This engineer recommends
compliance with the City of Edmonds standard storm water drainage controls.
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_c�i U.
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Any retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any f ill placement and compaction
Subsurface drainage installation
5MMMA B Y -
The three proposed single family residences (on Lots 2, 3, and 4) are
geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the
0
0 rn
M 0
--1 0
i pzt
X FTJ
M
ID
C z
>
0 -n
-n
rn M,
1
a
0
0 Fn
M 0
z
7-1
X
_P
0
M
1D.
Michel Construction
Page nine
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans
and key geotechnical inspection AU =I construction.
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
1111111WITE
Mm
A"�- /� - Z�'- �-
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical/Civil Engineer
DMB:vIb
A
....... ...........
;IIT—H S
ATL
--------------
SN
1 2---
'OT4; pl.
It.
me
1:17
172ND
5�5
, - - E:--
:--1 I
Im
I Z09TH ST
21!
C,
O�
z OR
z
- - - -- - - - - - - --- - - - --- - - - -
. . . . . .. . . .
LU
17, p46 5
N�, -N(GIZ5..
1441.-
64 FT.
-Z,4� �Jca—�E g
T �A-
G-T A (PKIVATE' KO. -- ----
PLOTPLAN NI
2
0
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
............
ID
It-0
N cli
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
Ir
SETBACKS .....................
FOUNDATION:
z
Footing ......................
TVQ
Wall..........................
Fier/porch .................
Retaining �Vall
4
0C
Slab Insulation ..........
M
M 00
PLUMBING:
0
Underground .. ..........
M
Ro gh-in
u
10
commercial Final
HEATING:
Gas Test
.....................
Gas Piping
MITI
Equipment ................
0
0 M
Commercial Final
C 0)
M
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
34- :221
z
NAILING ..........................
I& � I
FRAMING .........................
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
z
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
z
Wall Insulation ...........
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
--, —Z—
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY I .................
_41FIE --a—
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
11 NESS
M MAILING ADDRESS
AILII
71-07' 6)lVrr
CITY Zip ITEL51"ll
%)0 40';-
NAME
dyr/
i //('//
IDDRES�
,//�//7 Z`X
CITY zli'
..........
I- i'v b v hl, 1(2,
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE
I m
ql if,
PERMIT EX IRES
USE PERMIT 27f
J
ZONE NUMBER
i B U TEIAPTN
ADDRESS ;7�1 7;-
PLAT N MEISUBDIVISION NO.
LOT NO.
LID No .20
?
4
LID FEE $
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER IAL STREET MAP
TE I
P:�Apll-ll 0
P-1- `j . 0
t I u P,
P
EXISTING — PROPOS
REOUIREDDEDICAT101— FT
MIT
LINE
NO. OF FlXqES
P
I
,V4E,
to
jZE
[XqES
SjElUlolEl
YE N
2MARKIIS-T-1— .1—INSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
FAF
mmmm DATE
CITY zip
vr,
I- 1 -11- Lj_
IVIANIt W L
INSPECTION
INSPECTION
I
'ON
STATE LICENSE NUMBER 4 DATE CHECKEDBY
RED
0YREO&WO
ES
0 YES No
ST DO
S
�'-TE
P�__
I
BID N AREA
SERA REVIEW ON AREA
SERA R Z
HEIGHT
P
COMPLETE ALLOWED R POSED
PROPERTY TAX AC OUNT PA P-L NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED PROPOSED
Pi
/ 4 �Y EXP
NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING1 ECH ALLOWED
LOTCOVER�GE REOUIR90 SETBACKS (FT) POPOSED SETBACKS (FT.)
P SED FRONT S E REAR PONT UPSIDE REAR
ROPO ID
ANCE OR
I
2,5.1
251 25.1' 2q,
, '2'
El ADDITION C] COMMERCIAL COMPL
C] M o HANGE OF USE
N B
PARKING L )T AREA P E IEWE�By E E
G
M 0 RTM T REDO PROVIDED
C3 HE ODEL 0 APARTMENT SIGN
FENCE
C-] REPAIR Y.S 0 1 _ X IT) REMAHW J�mgjoq' L��
o OTHER
DEMOLISH TANK
FF-F, mr-mo
G A'AGE ING'W—.
CA.I.PT RWT-NR C3 RENEWAL.
PCF
-MID q5
VA - 16 - ob
TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) -1— 0
CHECKED B� TYPE IF WC '0' GC�' Upp"TQ
IVL '4.,wl v o
VCON-
NUMBER NUMBER 0
DINEI I ING
Sp CIAL IN -7 CC
g�TOR AR A F'L: LOAD
OF
STO
REOUIRED YES
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO
A ek) ell AVI)a/o
wlnl!lz�'eL�
tv t�
,
FEE-
HIAT
.......
PLAN CHECK NO:
PLUMBING
MECHANICAL
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
ON THE PUBLIC
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION
DOMAIN (CURBS. SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAY , MAROUBES. ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
GRADINGIFLL
SEPARATE PERSMISSION.
L
STATE SURCHARGE
PERMIT APPLICATION: IBDDAYS
PERMIT LIMIT. I YEAR . PROVIDED WO RK IS STARTED WITHI N 160 DAYS
ENG. REVIEW FEES
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INIORM ION
ON BEHAL REIGNS AND SVCCESORS
F HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS� A
CITY OF
ENO, I -SF CTION FEE
;APPLICANT.
N INTEREST. AGREES TO :NDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE
TS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
LA I I
I N F
OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARS NO DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
THIS PERMIT 8 E OF 5 PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
RECEIR g
P -C CK DEPOSIT o-s z-
OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
0 RDINANCE PROVISION.-
RECEIP _26
TOTAL AMOUNT DUE o
50
)0(
I H EREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION THAT THE INFORMATION
P THE MY AUTHORIZED AGENT 01
THAT. THE -WNER6 I
APPLICATION APPROVAL
T
GIVEN I ' CORRECT, AND,
S OU -
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO ;OVPLy WITH CITY AN STATE LAW RE LATING CONSTRUC
CALL 1 8. P I Y r
114 DOING THE WORK ORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
TION; AND AUTH L
OF WASHINGTON RE ATING TO
FOR INSPECTION "-p- Ilk-110dood 1. GP-11 Pl-d-d
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE
COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
OF11 CIALS SIGNAruRE DATE
WORKMEN'S
QVINEY OR
(425)
A
76T6RE
LL
771-0220 -_V.LrASED 11 DATE
_Aftb�TfON
EXT 333
TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDIN G OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
�-QAA
771-0221
IT IS UNLAWFUL
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- gORGINAl FILE YELLOW INSPECTOR
PINK - OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
Z
9
0
a m
c
m
m
Z
091 U)
c
Z
9
0
m