20020881.pdfCITY OF EDMONDS
N
rS P='ZL
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
jo EIAPT#
ADDRESS
0 OF
"S
PLAT NAMSISUBDIWSION NO. 6T 140� LID NO.
MAILING
ADDRESS
LID FEE I
P BLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
CITY
EXISTING - PROPOSED
il��
REQUIRED DEDICATION- FT Lquu-
NAME
MliTla SIEE LINE NO, OF FIXTURES PAN REQUIRED
SIZE
�Al=_, C%wu a'A INC,
� I f 4
YE.0
ADDRESS
-
REMARKS
jWN-NTFACTDa 11.1IP.NW.L. FOR EROSION O.T..LKIRAINAAE
lWeDrioNs ReVc) � 01 I-xos(Ot-1 (Q M-IL-W(Ori
IS
ZIP ITEL11
STATE LICENSE NUMBER
PROPERTY -FAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
nQ49-3 - 4: -4) - n";Q
ONE
'7'1 Co
FIRE REVIEWED BY DAT.
VARIANCE C. SHORELINE OR ADS# INSPECTION �801`1
RED, OS
13 YES A NO I __ 15
SIGN AREA HEIGHT
COMPLETE ALLOWED OSED ALLOWPO PROPOSED
1E.P .....
_
-VIEW 0-RESIDENTIAL PLUM NO MECH
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SET IS (FF.) PROPOSED SETBACKS LPT.
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDBAC REAR FRONT UR SIDE REAR
ADDITION COMMERCIAL
0 Me IAL
CGARLLANCE OR
HAN.E 0, Us.
-
51 X -26X P 1 173 gAAr I -;-
5
----------
[j REMODEL [0] APARTMENT
[I SIGN
T�4 IT AR PLANNING REVIEWED BY
4 PARKING 'DATE
RECO PROVIDED
ISRA ING
REPAIR ING
n FENCE
,p C,G
z I CGE
a X FT)
REMARKS
'I
DEMOLISH [0 TANK
[j OTHER
ARPO 0 RETAINING WALL
��NAGRT ROOKERY
RENEWAL
(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) FXPLAINi
CLUED ED BY TYPE OF CONITRUCTION OCCUPANT
StNKAUE ]�� A I L�A
9��AOEW izie_,
-va
-va 11
NUMBER UMBER OF
OF DWELL NO
CRITICAL
AREAS
SPECIAtINSPECTOR NT
STORIES UNITS
NUMBER
JAREAp
REQU'.ED!AYEB E
DESCRIBE WORK To BE DONE
_��PU
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER USC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REaD
129211W 2EJ-)KA5 &7 :R� 1-1
S)NMLE EA"LIA
d" �ft4C;;� - (2ppt�d
1
1. — - Firr �7Mj
551A
Plan Check
Ian
I -4-U 3
/P
FOR %
Z, 5"
Building ZOW
f�m ��PE
PLAN CHECK NO: 17ESTIDDATE
Plumbing I/10-
0
Mechanical 0
THIS PERMIT AUTHOR�S ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO
t: BE DOME ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
3 0 a
OMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, FTC.) WILL SQUIRE
WCheckl-I—IP3
Recording Fee
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
U
PI MITAPPLICATION: 1NDAYS
A.
Emir. Review City Surcharge -//f;
PERMIT LIMIT I YEAR - PROVID 0 WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEC BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Engr. Inspection State Surcha Ige
ON BEHALF 01 HIS OR HER IPOUIE, HEILS, A.IG.S AND SUCCESORS
Plan Chk Deposit
Traffic Mitigation 7�UT_
IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS, WAIHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Review Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT OF
0 MODIFYAWAIVE OR RE UCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
F, . Cimn
Fire Inspection Total Amount Due
N=TTO
IN ANY W T HE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.-
Landscapeltisp.1 I Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION� THAT THE INFORMA71ON
GIVEN Is CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
APPLICATION APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
T 1' .1
CALL gn�dbyLh
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VI N OF THE LA 11 CODE —THE STAT OF WASHINGTON RELATING To
KID Offid.1 .1 KIM., D�put,: �,,d F... P.id, .d
FOR INSPECTION
N SATA INSU)MNCE AYD RCW 18.27�
OFI`It�ALS SIGNATURE
a ttt U I W A IATE SIGNED
TH 'a
(425)
QA=ION
771-0220 kV\
D
N
//�TE
EXT 1333
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
771-0221
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
ORIGINAL:FILO YELLOW, 1114eckri
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED, UBC SECTION 109
I;AY PINK OWNER GOLD - ASSESSOR
10/01
z
0
am
C
M a
0
80
C
m ITT
z
0 n
"n
m m
a-
0"0
0 M
C U)
9 u)
M 0
z
z
to
z
0
m
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnicall I Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
KIP 1 1 2002 September 6, 2002
PERMIT COUNTER
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc. CITy copy
Z
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
Edmonds, Washington 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report�'
Vi
Om
Proposed Single Family Residence
ca
In 0
7xx Spruce Street, Edmonds, Washington
80
This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of a
M
M Z
new single family residence lot (Lot "A"), located at 7xx Spruce Street, Edmonds,
C:
Washington, with respect to the proposed single family residence project. This
evaluation was required due to owner developer concerns, as well as City of
Edmonds requirements.
0 -n
BACKGROUND:
Mai
This engineer conducted a preliminary geotechnical evaluation of the property
0
0 rn
Cm
on September 6, 2002. It is understood that the property is "12' shaped, and consists of
C co
MO
approximately 8,138 square feet. This engineer understands that the property consists
The
Z -
r
of approximately 101.7 frontage feet along the south side of Spruce Street.
adjoining properties, as well as the neighborhood, consist of single family residences
X
on similar size lots.
Z
The property has recently been subdivided, with an existing house to the
southwest (718 Spruce Street, Lot "B"). The subject property contains mature trees,
65
Z
shrubs and lawn areas. the property is gently sloped (less than 5%), and drains
northwesterly to the existing City of Edmonds storm system.
I
rn
EVALUATION:
Visual assessment of the property at 7xx Spruce Street revealed no evidence of
any geotechnical distress. No slides, no settlements, no creep, nor any significant
erosional degradation were observed. This engineer has considerable experience in
the immediate vicinity and Understands the foundation subgrade conditions.
Experience has proven that the subgrade soils are fully capable of properly supporting
the proposed single family residence project.
SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
-Page two
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test pits were
dug under this engineer's observation in September, 2002. A total of two (2) backhoe
soil test pits were dug. Both soil test pits revealed similar subgrade conditions,
namely:
011 to 81, Lawn, roots, and organic silt
8" to approx. 9' Relatively clean sands, with occasional gravels, dense to
very dense
No ground water was observed in any of the test pits. All test pit walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS-.
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 7xx Spruce Street is geotechnically approved for the
proposed Michel Construction single family residence project, subject to the following:
- 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
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer.
-For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of
350 p.c.f.
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 Earthwork and Structural Fill
for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and
individual spread footings should have mini 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 footing 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.
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
Page three
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,
z
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
Vi
the foundations and the bearing soils, or by passive earth pressure acting on the
0 m
vertical, embedded portions of the foundations. For the latter condition, the
C:
M
0
foundations must either be poured directly against undisturbed soil or the backfill
-40
0 C:
placed around the outside of the foundation must be level structural fill. We
:0 M
recommend the following design values be used for the foundation's resistance to
M
rn
lateral loading:
C _Z
Paramete Design Value
0
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Where:
Vi
0
0 Fn
C
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot.
rn 0
(2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density.
A safety factor of at least 1.5 is recommended for design of the foundation's
resistance to lateral loading.
z
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
z
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils
0
or on str uctural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these
M
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
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
Page four
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:
Paramete Desion Value
Z�
0
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
M
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
0 rn
C )
Where:
M 0
80
C
M
(1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
M z
(2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
C
densities.
For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall
-0"
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
MM
0
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.
M
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
k
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
z
need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the
appropriate design earth pressures.
0
M
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
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
Page five
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-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 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 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 than 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 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.
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 any of the test pits during the field work.
Z
0
:j
0
M
CO
M
0
80
a
: E
OM
%;
M
rn M
a
0
0
9 CO
Q 0
Z
ca
Z
0
j
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
Page six
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 tenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
Z
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
0
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
m
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
�A
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.
0 M
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
C'
M 0
-q 0
0 C
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of
rn
M Z
all surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped
Z
or removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural
fill.
NOTE: specific clearing limits to be established atpre-construction meeting with City
0 _n
"n
of Edmonds building officials and inspectors.
rn M
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
0
0
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
C
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after
M 0
excavation prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content at or
nearthe moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that moisture
optimum
Z
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
Z'
compaction process.
The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type,
0
M
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%
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
Page seven
Location of Fill Placement Minimum Relative
Combaction
z
0
Behind retaining walls �90%
0
M
Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of
—
-4 -n
subgrade, 90% below that level
Vi
m
C
Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of
M 0
0
the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in
C
accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-1557-78 (Modified Proctor).
M M
10
Use of On -Site Soils
C z
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when on -site soils are wet,
Vj:
site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the potential
09
need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally sandy and thug are not
E� C
I
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture content of
M M
these soils exceeds the optimum moisture content,
Vi
0
or-
C M
Moisture sensitive soils will also be susceptible to excessive softening and
K Ch
�To
"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
z
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.
z
The use of "some" on -site soils for fill material may be acceptable if the upper
0
M
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident at 7xx Spruce Street. Surface runoff flows
generally northwesterly. This engineer recommends compliance with the City of
Edmonds standard storm water drainage controls within the existing city of Edmonds
storm water system.
Michel Construction, Inc. 7xx Spruce Street
Page eight
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:
- Foundation subgrade verification
- Retaining wall, or rockery placement
- Any fill placement
SUMMARY:
The proposed Michel Construction single family residence project at 7xx
Spruce Street, Is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the.
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
requirements.
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.
g- 4,- /YZ'
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical Civil Engineer
'77. �' �i it 0119ono W611'
NOTICE: IF THE DOCUMENT IN THIS FRAME IS LESS CLEAR THAN THIS NOTICE
IT IS DUE TO THE QUALITY OF THE DOCUMENT.
63
Umbaugh, Theresa
J,
From: Palmatier, Lara
Sent: Tuesday, October 08, 2002 11:26 AM
To: Waite, Jim
Cc: DST; Chrisman, Lyle
Subject: 7141716 Spruce Street
With Rob Michel's Short plat 01-196, the existing house, 718, is being changed to 714. The new house built on
the newly created lot is 716. The existing water meter and sewer will serve the NEW house so the EXISTING
house has to pay new fees to connect to water and sewer. When the new house (716) is issued, they will only
have to reconnect to existing so the fee will be $35 and they will call you to reconnect water. You will be
O�
getting water and sewer permits for 714, full fees paid but it is an existing house so I wanted you to know what
is going on. If you have any questions, you should ask Lyle since he is the one that informed us of how to handle
this. Thank you!
Lara Palmatier, LMP
V,
Development Services Coordinator
m 01
City of Edmonds
0
0
Phone 425.771.0220.1703
C
Fax 425.771.0221
re
C
0 n
m M
0
fn
-;41
Vi
z
m
C
ma
0
-10
0 C
m ra
C—
z
3. Maximum Elevation Allowed: e.ge grade) + 25'=
!It `(av
3!
On
4. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
m M
VS
qdaturn elevation)+ CV6 1 (grade to transit level lineshotto house)=
0
0 Fn
C cc
6. Measurements from line shot onto house toroof ridge:
0!
i
z
—71 )Z
W
z
0
m
Total
7. ActVYIevation: 9� U6 �reference point elevation) 4-��O —f(I(measurements from
13-7
#6)
C 0 UTI u sin:
(actual) is greater /resi t6ji (allowed); therefore the house is/
is not over the height requiremehtwACDC 16.20.30 requirements
BTENIPWILDINGWISOHeight CalculationGrading Verification Worksheet.doc
05/17/2004 15: 05 4257789086 MICHEL CONST PAGE 03
IvEb
MAY 1 7 2004
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
May 7, 2004
MAY 1 �7 2004
4
0
0
City of Edmonds EVELOPMENT l,'
c/o Michel Construction, Inc. CITY OF 6,o,C,,-S CTR.
7907 212"' St. SK #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: finglikeport - Geotechnical inspections
U M
C
M CO),
0
716 Spruce St., Edmonds, Washington
-4 0'
c:
City of Edmonds Permit No. 20020881
m
This engineering report presents the final results of ongoing geotechnical
P Z
3
inspections for the new residence at 716 Spruce St., Edmonds, Washington. These
6i
inspections were required by City of Edmonds permit stipulations.
0 _n
_n
REFERE
C
rn m
. City of Edmonds approved Project Plans
0 r
0
o Geotechnical Report by D. Bruce, P.E. dated September 6, 2002
C
* Construction photographs
mo�
INSPEC
This engineer performed on -site gootec hnical inspections for the following
aspects of the new residence:
Excavation: Soil cuts encountered dense, native sub -grade soils consisting of
Z'
relatively clean sands with occasional gravels as anticipated by the Geotechnical
Report. Soil cuts greater than 4 feet required localized placement of Eco-Block
0
In
shoring (see photographs), Excavation cuts remained stable throughout the
foundation and stem wall installation phase of the project. All excavation is
geotechnically approved.
Soil Bearing: This engineer verified dense, native, sub -grade soils easily
capable of providing 2,000 p.s,f. bearing capacity. "OK" to proceed with
foundation formwork, reinforcing steel and concrete placement in accordance
with City of Edmonds approved Plans and inspections.
SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN A PERMIT - LEGAL
P,0. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
05/17/2004 15:05 4257789086 MICHEL CONST PAGE 02
City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
May 7, 2004
k,
Page 2
Structural Fill: No significant quantities of structural fill was required due to the
presence of dense, native sub -grade soils. Localized rains and seepage into the
foundation zone allowed for effective use of gravel in some portions of the
formwork. This gravel was used as a co, nstruction expedient and improved
g-,
overall foundation integrity.
Z
,0
-4
r��
Retaining Wall, Rockery: this engineer verified proper installation of the west
0.
property line Eco-Blo ck stabilization wall (adjacent the joint parking area, as well
as the stabilization rockeries on both sides of the new residence).
Base rocks were properly embedded in dense, native sub -grade soils. Rock
M
linkage, batter, drainage zone and overall "blending in" to the site contours was
M 0
R
successfully completed and is geotechnically approvAA.
C,
M
M
SUMM
All special geotechnical inspection aspects have been properly co mpleted and
C: Z
>
are ap proved.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
M M
6 Fn
C (fi
C
M 0:
417406
Z
U
Dennis M, Bruce, P.E.
Z
Ueotechnical Civil Engineer
04
M
DMB:abJ
RECEIVED
MAY 11 2004
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR,
CITY OF EDMONDS
FINAL EROJECT APPROVAL, FORM
TO
DATE*
MIEMOTO: PMUM COORDINATOR. BUIM19G DPASION
FROM —FIRE DEPAR770W DA TE
�N'GINEERING DIVISION DATE
z
DIVISION DATE�—
q 5i
M
SiTEADDRES
M 0
80
t
PMwr #" 2 W______--PATE,INSPE
C
M M
M z
DESCRIPTIONOF:WORKTOBE
z
-4
A field inspection was conducted to determine final compliance with.approved Plans. Final approval
from the above signed Department to the release of
0 n
n�
denotes that. there are no objections
BONDS and the grouting of:
-4
=9
MM
_PERFQ�RMANCE
GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
9 co
M 0
Z
PROJECT APPROVA� WIM CONDITIONS NOTEI)
>
z
GRAM
a C4pyofCONDrnONSgiVentDOWU-/WnftCtOrbyinsp-tor
CD
z
FAHM FINAL INSPEMON - OUTSTAMING ISSUES
M
a Cbpy of -COMMON NOTICE given to owner/conttactor by inspector
2.
3.
RE-INSpECM OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL,
Datq—�
0CNPr4Ld=l:".b1ft:f0MW10/01,
RECORD OF INSPECTIONS
INSPECTOR
DATE APPROVED
SETBACKS .....................
_0Z
FOUNDATION:
I H,
Footing ....................
Wall MS.
z
...........
Pier/Porch
Retaining Wall ...........
Slab Insulation .......... \(V\S
PLUMBING:
ITI
C
R.,
0
Underground .............
Rough -in .............
-4 C
x
Commercial Final
M
to -4
HEATING:
C
GasTest ....................
Gas Piping
A U-1-0
0 -n
Equipment .............
M fn
Commercial Final
0
0
EXTERIOR SHEATHING
03-
09
C ca
C 0)
NAILING ...................
L2
M 0
z
FRAMING ........................
74
FIRST FLOOR FRAMING...
INSULATION ...................
Floor Insulation
Wall Insulation
co
z
Ceiling Insulation
PAS
0
ITI
SHEETROCK NAILING
SPECIAL INSPECTION
MISCELLANEOUS ..........
FINAL APPROVAL FOR
OCCUPANCY .............
Side sewer V__L�
All-out
Dctepure:1-11