20020170.pdfIPERMIT
EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
USE ERM T
ZONE ab NUMBER
JOB ESS T
ADDA
OWNEFJPAMEINAME OF BUSINE
FLAT NAMEISUBDIVIISION NO,
LOT NO.
LID NO.
LID FEE S
MAILING ADDRESS
PUBLIC FIGHT OF JAY PER OFFICIAL �TREET MAP
EXISTING
REQUIRED DEDICATION 4�
-a nsed
Ids.� 13
13
U—s—ni
ZIP ITELEPHONE
MS!I;ZE I
I
LINE'SJ�E
I ,
]�J'
RED
0
YESr.G 0 3
ADDRESS
REMARKS Is
ERACONTRACTOR TIES' ... ISLE FOR �110.1.. C.N-OL/DIA1NAGE
I ospumoos "-b ni AAW SWW
,bP
TELEPHONE
?-V,- '7 V.-R�5
n7, +i-Ad i It P_ C�D W44,401r) (M E�U_S()tj Mq NAL�
9 2 ��_: 9 1 - 4: � �_ r -,:::: -/"/- —
FIRE FRkNIEWED By
R
,��LEP. NE
VARIANCE OR CU
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATI CH D BY
B
COMP
�JEL 110. COMPLETE E�
0 n P
EXP
L L.
OT COVEAGE
LN-.aw RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH
ADDITION
COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHAN E OF USE
REMODEL
APARTMENT
E] SIGN
REPAIR
Xel,—
Al
F NCE
11 ( — X Fri
DEMOLISH
TANK 154
0 OTHER
CA FOR
RETAIN No WALL
13 ROOKERY
0 RENEWAL
0 (TYP ON ACT.'PIPLAIN:
I IF 11, BUSINESS
------------
7UMBER
7NUMSER
sa OF
STORIE4+6
OF
DWELLING
UNITS
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
SHORELINE OR ADB# ' INSPECTION I 11IND
r_�� , `FOFdN0 P<EC
13 YES
SIGN AREA 'HEIGHT
ALLOW ISO AZ�IID , �;SD
4= 0 SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
D SIDE HEAR FRONT UR St
5' QL& 5 1 5 1 f)
Z� I ... I
LO G 11111 BY DAT,�,
I\ W, Q_ A�__ 6/(:)-
-3 L11 - aL�o I - I a�u
CHECKED BY ITYPE OF CONXSTFAIjrION I C
OC UPANT
GROUP
UBC 1108/FINAL INSPECTION REO`D
9=11 "I'M �IMIMM ".
1901r. �11�
I
Description
ascription
FEE
Description
FEE
M��
Plan Check
Plan Check
HE;�GUIICE GLAI;;�,
id.n.
Building
."g
tD
60 �:;Iciq
PLAN CHECK ND�W )OC2 VESTED DATE
"Urn I
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE ORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
HE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ONT"E PUBLIC
D OMAN SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, WILL REQUIRE
Grading �Z_00
Recording Fee
X (CURBS, MARQUEES, ETC.)
3 SEPARATEPERMISSION.
Engr. Review S-0—
City Surcharge
PERMIT APPLICATION: IN DAYS
PERMITUM YEAR WORK
I -PROVIDED IS STARTED WITHIN ISODAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Engr. Inspection _eo
State Surcharge'
'APPLICANT, ON BEHAL OF `a ON HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
'TO
Traffic Mitigation
Plan Chk Deposit Z5 q5_
IN INTEFIERI AD.SaiS IND'EMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICALS, EMPLOYEES. AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Review
Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
1 FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMR. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SH U. NOT BE
9 DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY C TY ORDINANCE
Fire Inspection
Total Amount Due
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY`S ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
Landscapeinsp.1
Receipt #
I HERE 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
APPLICATION APPROVAL
OWNER 'AGREETOCOMPLYW
THE WITH ITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTFUC-
IN RY
CALL
This applicaflanarna a penhit unih,19ald by the
T no �EG
TION; AND IN DOING THE W0NJ( A�T.., I ' THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATI LOS F E STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
IDE '
Building Bikini., hisher Deputy; and Fees are paid, and
FOR INSPECTION s.Pn Ja.aI,ndg.d In.p.o. IF ... Idea.
RAN
1FAKMEN. RAN AND RCW 18.27.
OFFICIALS
SIGNATURE
OR E SIGNED
(425)
t7T)
771-0220 RELEASED BY IIAIE I
T'O"
EXT 1333 z
T' IN! F U OR .-UPY A BUILD ING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
'AT �"- I
771-0221
.E
r' L ..,EL.TTfC. A. BEEN MADE AN. APPROVAL OR A GERTIFI-
PAJE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. USC SECTION 109
FAX
06GINAL,/Fritik YELLOW. INSPECTOR
PINK-t:IWNER GOLO-ASSESSOR
z
0
ICY M
C 0
17110
80
M fn
z
10
cc
0 -n
-n
M in
0-
0 CO
0
a
9 V)
11,110
Z r.
V
z
z
9
0
M
46
it
AT,%,
/* /-A
I C
Ih
U=1
am
moo
80
m
LU
> Z
r
Fr
s(s
tic
0 -n,
irl
--------- mm
WY41
0
co
yy"
m
-- -------- z
Cn L
z
j Fu — co)
LL
L z
m
Drainage Plan
C-TTV
LF
(IAL DESCRIPTION t�l��T�A�!Uj�TL N 7 208 2
...... JAN
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
���VERAQE CALCULA 2N CITY OF EDMONDS
---------- 11 ....
I.M� $00"
n� ----------
I /Y
�'b A159A 'A'
Af
pt�
tL
114
1
4p
tmpom/Ay CONSTRUCT401f
ENTRANCE 119WIR
Gradinq Plan
Q. . . . . . . . . .
RECEIVEr)
JAN 7 2002
CopyDEVELOPMENT
OMER/0ONTRACTOR IS REMSIBLE FOR
SERVICES CTA.
CITY OF EDMONDS
EROSION CONMOL AND DRAINAGE
z
o
m
m
c
m
c
A
m
n
m M
0
0
TO
z
CD
z
m
0
0
MEMORANDUM
Date: 6 February, 2002
to: File
Z
From: Danielle Gilbert, Engineering A
Subject: Schmaus SFR@ 746 Edmonds Street (PC NO2-002) Sidewalk
-n,:
Requirements
m
C
m rn 0-
Per Section 18.90 ofthe ECDC, RS-12 zone and higher sidewalks are not required unless the
street is more than 300' and the City Engineer and Planning Manager determine that sidewalks
m
are needed. After review ofthe proposed sight and applicable code it was determined that
sidewalks would not be required in this Instance.
C z
0
0
In,
C 0);
to
M
Z:
Z
z
M,
\\ClTY2\SYS\ENGR\Danielle\Menio records\Schmaus746Mem-doc
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A� Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
July 28, 2001
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
Z
0
f-,
18607 Olympic View Dr.
0
Edmonds, WA 98020
I -n
Subject Gootechnical Evaluation I Foundation & Drainage Recommendations
13 M
Proposed New Residence
a
0
Edmonds St. (West of 8'h Ave. N)
-10
0
M M
This engineeringreport presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the
10
Eaglewood Homes, Inc. property on Edmonds St. (approximately 150 feet west of 8"
Ave. N). This evaluation was required due to project owner / developer (Eaglewood
Homes, Inc.) concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements,
0 -n
REFERENCES:
rn rn
a Site plan and project plans for proposed new single-family residence
0
0 F;
a Ch
0 Site photographs of test pit excavations
r ca
A.A_CKQFt0UNQ:
Z
The property on Edmonds St- is rectangular (approximately 90 feet by I 10 feet).
It is understood that this property was short platted from the existing residence and
Z
overall lot (to the east),
The Eaglewood Homes lot has never been developed (with the exception of
C&
Z
0,
small garden zones). See photographs.
0
M
The primary geotechnical aspect impacting development is the moderate to
steep slopes at the western and northwest portion of the property.
visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnical
distress: no slides, no sloughing, no soil tension cracks or creep, nor any erosiona'
RECEIVED
degradation was observed.
8 2C;91
CITY 031"Y
SOILS FOUNDAVONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX W-W2
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July28,2001
Page 2
The overall property is vegetated with moderately mature trees, shrubbery and
grasses (see site plan).
The surrounding properties contain single-family residences on similarly sloped
properties.
The Edmonds St. currently terminates at the northeast corner of this lot (see
plans), The right-of-way continues westerly (down slope) paralleling the north property
line of this project.
0,
Access to this property will entail a driveway extending beyond the current paved
end of Edmonds St., and "sweeping in" to this lot (see site plan).
EVALUATION:
DMr
0
0
chnical informatio
In order to augment the existing site geote n, 3 track hoe dug
C�
C '11,
M
soil test pits were excavated under this engineer's observation on July 3, 2001 (see
M Z
photographs). All three test pits revealed similar sub grade conditions, namely,
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt
6" to 9' (bottom of test pit) Very dense sand with gravel and occasional
cobbles
C
M
No water was encountered in either of the three test pits. All test pit walls
M
0
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
0
C CD
CONCLUSIO HSI RECOMMENDATION
M 0
Z
--i �
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
e
the area, the Eaglewood Homes property on Edmonds St. (west of Ave. N) is
geotechnically approved fo r the proposed single-family residence project, subject to
Z
the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings, Allowable bearing
Z
9
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
0
M
Deck posts to be supported on five (5) pin piles driven under this engineers
inspection.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c,f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 26, 2001
Page 3
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
P,01
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 the later sub -section entitled General Earthworkand Structural Fill for
structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual
spread footings should have minimum 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.
-excavation may be required below
Depending on the final site grades, some over
footings to expose competent native soils, Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the over -excavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the over -excavation and the footing width, For
struction example, an over -excavation extending two feet below the bottom
G.L.C. Con
of a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feel, 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-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 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:
Paramete Design Value
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 P.O.
Where:
z
9
0
M
,:; T,
a5 �
am
C
Ma
0
80
C
MM
MF
4
z
I (a
0
M m
C
C V)
M C)
Z r- I
z
z
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 28, 2001
Page 4
(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 I east 1.6 be used for design of the
foundation's resistance to lateral loading.
SLABS -ON -GRAD
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 re-oompacted prior to placement of the free -draining send or gravel underneath
the slab, This sand and gravel tayer 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 following
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height which
restrain level backfill:
PaEgmete Design Value
Active Earth Pressure 35 p.c-f
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 P�c.f,
Where:
jCrfoot
(1) p�c1. is pounds per cub
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot defect 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).
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.
z
0
0M
M 0
0
80
C
M M
c:
0
M M
0 V;
0
0
C
M
z
I In
M
z
0
M
0
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 28, 2001
Page 5
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads Vill 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 Backfill
Backfill placed within eighteen (18) inches of any retaining or foundation walls
should be free -draining structural fill containing no organics. This backrill 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-five (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 composites
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
backrill 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 wait. The
subsection entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill contains 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
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater then four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
(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 2H: IV. It Is important to note that
sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware
of this potential hazard.
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 28, 2001
Page 6
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.
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 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.
No groundwater was observed in either 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, 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.
GENE L 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.
MOJE: Specific clearing limits to be established at pre -construction meeting with City
of Edmonds.
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
supportloads. 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
Z
0
C
M 0
0
C
M M
Z
co
O"n
'n
M M
0
OC
mo�
7 "1
Z
M
Z
Z
0
M
Eaglewood Homes, Inc.
July 28, 2001
Page 7
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 Placemen Minimum Relative
Corrigaction
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95%
Behind retaining walls 90%
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
Sub grade, 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-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when 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
"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 maybe acceptabil ifthoupper
organic materials are segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
Z
0
M
cc:
M
-40
0,
0 C
MT
CE
MM
a
0
0 Fn
C
M 0
z
0
M
W
Ea lewood Homes, Inc.
July 28, 2001
Page 8
DRAINA _E -CONTROLS:
Q
No drainage problems were evident at the Eaglewood Homes, Inc. property on
Edmonds St. (west of e Ave, N). Surface water currently infiltrates into the sandy sub
grade soils, Any surface runoff flows west by northwesterly into the vegetated slope.
The new single-family residence shall comply with City of Edmonds gutter
downspout and storm water management requirements.
Z'
0
Geotechnically, it is e ential to not 'dump concentrated storm water" onto the
M
western slopes of the property.
AMEWS DRIVE:
Vi
am
As discussed, an access drive is required from the end of pavement on Edmonds
-4 0
0
St. to "sweep onto" this lot. This engineer anticipates that the access drive will requ ire
down slope stabilization (rookeries, ecology blocks, concrete retaining wall, etc.) for the
m
access drive.
10
C
Any standard slope stabilization wall is geotechnically acceptable, providing
>
compliance with the recommendations of this report and this engineees on -site
0
inspections.
Maximum access drive wall height anticipated to be six (6) feet.
M m
00NE.RET
0
C
All foundation concrete (footings, stem wells, slabs, any ret aining wells, etc.)
MO
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
;U
INSPECTIObj:
Z
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
Z
* Soil cuts
m
* Foundation sub grade verification
* Retaining wall, or rookery placement
* Any fill placement
* Subsurface drainage installation
SUMM
The proposed Eaglewood Homes, Inc. single-family residence project on
Edmonds St. (west of 8' Ave. N) is geotechnically viable when constructed in
accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds
approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection construction.
z
0
SLOPE SET BACK:
M
The issue of set back distance from top-crf-slope can be complicated. Code
-n.
language, topographic survey contour lines, and geotechnical realities often result in a
-4
confusing set of top -of -slope lines.
13M
C
This engineer has staked a relevant geotechnical top -of -slope line on -site, This
M
0
0
line has been plotted on the submitted site map.
C
M
rn z
The top -of -slope line is not relevant geotachnically: in other words, an
10
C: z
extensive, well designed foundation system could be safely and properly installed on
>
virtually any slope, The geotechnical relevant top -of -slope was staked by this engineer
t establish and clarify a reference point,
o -n
Obviously, construction costs and logistics greatly increase when working on
M M
steeper slopes. Thus, this engineer recommends a set back distance of minimum ten
Y M
(10) feet from the geotechnically relevant top -of -slope line.
This engineer has worked with project developer and architect to verity that the
cm
M 0,
house footprint is properly set back from the top -of -slope delineation.
CLOSURE z
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
z
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice, No other 0
warranty, either express or Implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results 0
of the field exploration and Interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored M
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.
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address:
Date:
Inspector(s): Npe)%
1. Datum Point: M 14
0,
4
2. Datum Point Elevation:
3. Average Grade: I c,
4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: average grade) + 25'
Vi
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: ,
mo,
(datum elevation) + 4q (grade to tr,,,it.level line shot to house)
M
ra��
10
p"
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roofridge:
CO
0 -W
n
M:
m
C
zo�
ZI
Total:-
Z�
0
m
7. Actual Elevation:)U 5 (reference point elevation) + I (measurements
from #6)
Conclu
(actual) is greater 4-eiss"i—ha)i allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requireme. Wper ECDC 16.20.30 requirements
L\TEMPIBUILDINGNISOHeight Calculation Worksheet.doc
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
August 31, 2002
RECEIVED
SEP 6
City of Edmonds ENGiNEERING DIVISION
Z�
91
1h
121 5 Ave. N
0
Edmonds, WA 98020
M
Subject: Final Report I Geotechnical Inspections
New Single -Family Residence at 746 Edmonds St.
C
City of Edmonds File No. SE-2001-120
M 011
40
0 C
This engineering report presents the results geotechnicafinspections of the
-4 Z
M
rn
p'.
Classico Homes' new single-family residence at 746 Edmonds St..
C Z
>
REFERENCES:
. City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
0 -n
9 Geotechnical Reports by D. Bruce, P.E. (July 28, 2001, January 27, February 5,
n1m
March 19, 2002)
Vi
6 fn�
* Photographs
C M,
1'�
INSPECTIONS:
MO
I
This engineer has provided on -site geotechnical inspections throughout the
;U
clearing, excavations, grading, foundation, drainage and final erosion control measures.
EXCAVATIONS:
Z
As discussed, the excavations encountered the anticipated dense, native sub -
Z,
grade soils (dense sands) that easily provide 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. Excavations
stable and approved.
rn
SLOPE STABILITY:
The slopes above and below the house footprint remained stable throughout the
project. No adverse geotechnical impacts were observed. Project contractor
successfully installed numerous keystone block walls to assist with erosional
stabilization (see photographs).
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
City of Edmonds
August 31, 2002
Page 2
SOIL BEARING:
As discussed, this engineer verified that foundation sub -grade soils met or
exceeded 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity.
EROSION CONTROL MEASURES:
As discussed, initial siltation fencing and straw bales were placed and properly
maintained. The sand soils minimized any siltation runoff.
Keystone block walls have been properly installed to create final grading
contours and minimize erosional sloughing. Final landscaping measures (shrubberies,
lawn, etc.) have been installed and are taking hold.
CONCLUSIONS -
Based on this engineer's on -site inspections and experience with numerous
similar projects, the following are concluded:
All special geotechnical inspection aspects of the new residence at 746 Edmonds
St. have been properly completed and are approved.
Final landscaping and erosion control measures have been installed and are
properly taking hold.
The residence at 745 Edmonds St. is geotechnicaliV approved.
If there are any questions do not hesitate to call.
M.
00
EMMS MY
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
DMB:abj
cc: Classico Homes
I
C
M
0
80
C
m m
C
>
m m
0
0
H
0,
Z
Z
0
I
0
m
I
FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUILDING DIVISION
FROM: ___YlRE DEPARTMENT DATR_
ENGINEERING DIVISION DATF—*5
DIVISIONDATE
PROJECT ��k"ALkS
SITE ADDRESS 24�1
PERMIT#, ADB# --DATE INSPECTED
DESCRIPTION OF WORK TO BE INSPECTED --El LI&L,
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 BgN_DS and the granting of:
-GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRANT PROJECT APPROVAL wrrH CONDITIONS NOTED
a Copy of CONDEBONS given to owner/contractor by inspector
FARED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES
a Copy of CORMC110N N0110E given to owner/contractor by inspector
2.
3.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES -GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Date sign—
ocapiv1.docJ:t=*:b1dg:fbr=10/01
z
9
0
0 M
a
M 0
0
80
M
M z
J0 —4
z
CA
0
M M
065
0 r-
0 M
C: ch
C co
Q 0
Z
z
ca
z
0
M
Footing ..................
wait
Pier/Porch .................
z
Retaining Wall
0
Slab Insulation
PLUMBING:
Underground
�n
.............
Rough-In
-7-
C: M
0
171 0
Commercial Final
0
C:
HEATING:
M
11111 z
Gas Test .................... `(y
10-4
Gas Piping
S C'
Equipment
Commercial Final
0
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
NAILING
M M
0
FRAMING ........................
C
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING
M 0
z
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation ...........
z
Ceiling Insulation
SHEETROCK NAILING jy\
-�4 fs <.�z
z
0
SPECIAL INSPECTION
A�
0
171111
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
vv_u
OCCUPANCY ..................
SideSewerO
AmoutPa1d$ ILL —RIM,
'z
Vote 1.k
res
waterMeterSize '2144
Amount dILALR 10�fq419,
i I )atePurb-sed____ t4f,7�
Z01v
i�mount Paid $ nempt
D' Aomm