20030477.pdfDATE RECEIVED��
LM �eL
I
LPER MIT EXPIRES -7�fP�z
CIW OF EDMONDS
USE PERMIT
ZOP NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB -SUITE/AP76#
ADDRESS
�4
6.
OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
7 &A 6E 1,VC,
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION;$O. LOT NQ
LID NO*
_&Al2
MAILING ADDRESS
t::::= -
LID FEE S
1 '0
6 z2ox 4?8��
PUBLIC RIGHT OF W�f PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP
TESCP Approved
AW Permit Requ red
Street Use Pnrrn:t Raq'd
CITY ZIP I TELEPHONE
EXISTING — pRopo
REQUIRED DEDICATION
l"P"tlo n Required
Sidewalk Required 13
Undartiround
Wiring required
N14E
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES
PWV REQUIRED
ba2
tl�
YE NO 13
ADDRESS
REMARKS
z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE:
-
R�Q�u x1y, o�,cotj
QTI16[jmtjET
CIT
.Y lip TELEPHONE
1,04V?, t 601V� (G) 015T?37�011
QQW(AfZ
NA!!�_i !�B
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY
DATE
ADDRESg-'
A)-
6161.92
�216E&t
FIRE REVIEWED BY
DATE
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
YLaLL CaU-4�—CM9Z
Yjal—:?
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINE ORADBII INSPECTION BOND
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY
REO'D POSTED
I I 1$
�ZA /27-Ex 42askA
E3YES
EKO
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA
HEIGHT
IROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED
ALLOWED PROPOSED
AM6,4_ -;Zh !q
V000,
I
I 41
-
EXP
NEW RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING I MECH
LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.)
ALLOWED FRONT SIDE REAR
PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.)
FRONT URSIDE REAR
ADDITION COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
PROPOSED
—3 51 Z42,
- 7— 1; -7. S- 15 1
37— -7,5 14 3-:
z
PARKING
LOT AREA PLANNING REVIEWED BY DATE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY
SIGN
RECID PROVIDED
119
REPAIR RADING
-ENCE
7— 3
I
CYDS
X FT)
REMARKS
DEMOLISH K
CTHER
GARAGE RETAININGWALL
F RE SPRINKLER
CARPORT ROCKERY
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITYI EXPLAIN:
CHECKED BY TYPE Of
OCCUPANT
12
t,-- 1
S_
;frON
GR
NUMBER NUMBER OF
OF DWELLING
CRITICAL
A A
SPECMLINIPI�PTION JAREA
.7
OCCUPANT/
STORIES UNITS
N!UEIJ�-
REQUIRED ja YES
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REO'D
L9 1-122 1 2
-32 Description FEE Description
Plan Check State Surcharge
FEE
HEAT SOURCE GLAZING % LOT SLOPE
-0
215, '7
B uilding Permit
//10 City Surcharge
0&�_ q 15
_1a
__
PLAN CHECI�,NO, VESTED DATE
Plumbing c9_1
em_
M— aa VAG
_7e
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY -aE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COI;ERS WORK TO
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERITY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
3 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
PERMIT APPILICATION: 180 DAYS
IL PERMIT ILIMM 1 YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'APPLICANT, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INTEREST. AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
a EDMONDS. WASHINGTON. ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapeinsp.
Total Amt. DUL
0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.,
zi
Recording Fee
Receipt #
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION; THAT THE INFORMATION
APPLICATION APPROVAL
GIVEN IS CORRECT. AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE To COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
This application Is not a permit until signed by the
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
Building Official at his[her Deputy: and Foes are paid, and
receipt Is acknowledged In space provided.
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
0 DATE
SIGNAT Wk j1O0R_ AGEN]11L,,, DATE SIGNED
(425)
771-0220
RELEARED BY D ATE
ATTEWTIOW
M 1333
A,1A,
f4LWZ&,'
IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
k"Kz9v
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
f
ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW- INSPdTOPl
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 5 COPIES
GREEN - ACCOUNTING
11A
z
9 , : I.
0
M
M
C
0
-40
0 C
M
M
10
0 _n
M M
0 — ; , .
0
0
C
M 0
z
z
z
0
1
0
ITI
(AS
i
artens Construction Inc. Lot,# 4
Address:
Tax Acct.#
Grading Plan Elevations
PO Box 13858
Manhole Cover 386.36'
t"IR
Mill Creek, WA 98082
Lot Am: 8100 SF
2:744 5F
(Datum Point)
P.
Telephone & Fax #
Lot Coverage, ftj fo
Driveway Curb: 388.03
425-745-2088
Lot Slope: < 80/0
311
Driveway Slope: <1 1%
Contact Person:
impgrvious Surfaces Cales
Garage Footing: 389.69'
Jack Martens
Proposed Builing: 1860 SF
Garage Floor: 391.36'
Lot 9 4
Covered Porch: 60 SF
Patio: 300 SF
Crawl Space Ftg: 389.69'
ist Fir. Top Fndn. 392.36'
C-D
House Plan# 2432
Driveway: 780 Sf
Finished Ist Flr: 393.36
Street Address:
Total impery, Sudaces 31300SF
Finished 2nd Fir: 400.94'
Mit
Edmonds, WA 98036
A = 395.00'
B = 395.00'
Top Plates: 408.69'
flighest Ridge: <415.69
Plan Description:
C = 395.00'
D = 395.00'
Max. Allowable Height: 420-00'
5 Bedrooms
2 -1/2 baths
Average Grade 395.00'
Back Yard Grade: 391.69'
3 car garage
Original Grade 395.00'
Maximum Height 420.W
Top of Back Rochery: 393.5'
I
West Promrtv Line: 395.00'
all
APPROVED AS NOTED
APPROVED AS NOTEQ—
B y
BY ENGINEERING
ENGINECRING
PAnD
q—
ate.
Date:
mpood,rost fir)
00
LA
RIGHT -OF -WA CON CTION PE MIT.
AND INSPECTI
TIO QL r
QUIRN\
04
q:
ge- ca LU
0 LU
cc C3
65ts-f-I
U-V5 cc 13 CD
North
OWNERICONTRACTOR IS RE!
EROSION CONTRO.. AND
North -------- 11-10"
TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION
ENTRANCE REQUIRED
SO
3:
APR 3
Ki
P E RM I I' C 0 U N1 TEE R
Sewfa
05/31/2001 10:47
4257789086 MICHLL UUNbl rMOM U4
-168
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Goo echnical/Civil Engineer
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
May 17, 2001
V
City of Edmonds ()PY
J
do Michel construction, Inc.
7907 21 e St. S.W., #102
M,
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Clarification Top And Too-Of-SIOPe
9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Was hington
This engineering report clarlifieS the geotechnicai issues regarding top -of -slope
to the Michel Const ruction, Inc. property at 9601 Edmonds
and toe-of-slOPe with regard
Way, Edmonds, Washington,
REFERENCES:
Location and topographic map by LSA dated January 17, 2001
Geotechnical evaluation and foundation reco mmendations by D. Bruce, P.E.
dated April 30, 2001
Proposed plans by Michel Construction, Inc.
Site photographs
"E TECHNICAL SLOPE SUES:
As previously discussed in the April 30, 2001 geotechn ical report, the overall
property consists of a lower zone, along with an upper zone.
A relatively steep "bluff -face" distinguishes the lower zo no from the upper zone.
This engineer has performed on site geotechnical investigations and analysis of
engineering criteria, the top -of-slope and
the site soil conditions. Based on geotechnical
tog -of -slope were staked and delineated. These delineations were plotted as indicated
M:
on the LSA site/topographic map.
This engineer understands that discussions with City of Edmonds planner an d
language interpretations of the City of Edmonds Code have re sulted in differing or
16Z
confusing designations for top -of -slope and toe -of -slope.
The purpose of the Edmonds Code (20.1 5B. 060-C) is to designate a "steep
area" based on perce ntage of ground inclination. Careful reading of
slope hazard
Section C results in a clear definition of the Code defines as percentage of slope. The
SOILS FOUNDA I IONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN A PERMIT LEOAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
05/31/2001
10:47 4257789086
0
I
-City of Edmonds
c/o Michel Construction, Inc.
May 17, 2001
Page 2
MLUHt--L UUNbl
E
language within Section C does not specify precisely where the top -of -slope and toe -of -
slope are located.
No code language could establish a toe or top -of -slope in that geotechnical
criteria impact this designation. Each specific site contains its own inherent
geotechnical conditions.
Attempts at survey plotting, or map interpretation, or languagelsemantic
interpretation are no match for site specific geotechnical analysis.
As previously stated, the apparent "bluff -face" area is the geotechnical issue of
relevance.
As previously discussed. this "bluff -face" is not the result of any inherent geologic
or geotechnical instability. Rather, it is simply the result of historic gravel excavation
activities along Edmonds Way.
Thus, this engineer stands behind and re -declares the top -of -slope and toe -of -
slope to be those lines plotted on the LSA site map.
RESOLUTION:
This engineer strongly recommends an on site meeting with owner, City of
Edmonds planners and engineers, and this engineer to clarify the precise locations of
top -of -slope and toe -of -slope. Such an on site meeting would deal with the reality of the
site, versus map interpretations or code language confusion.
SUMMA :
a Top -of -slope and toe -of -slope are geotechnical issues.
The top and toe -of -slope have been geotechnically staked and delineated on the
LSA site map,
0 On site meeting to resolve any remaining confusion.
a
R
0
to
t
DMB:abj
1P
Id 4
I Ulf
p
1: L I',.
It
I d d) p
I I
T.0
I d
Id
If 4 lk
I L
fj
I
1 1,
1 4 k
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
M.S.C.E., M.B.A.
April 30, 2001
RECEIVED
MAY 0 1 2001
Mr. Rob Michel DEVELOPMENT SERVICES
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 21 est. S.W., #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation Foundation Recommendations
55 4
Proposed Ten Single Family Residences
Washington
9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds,
This engineering report presents t he results of a geotech nical evaluation of the
0K.
eight building lots at 9601 Edmonds Way, Edmonds, Washington. This evaluation was
concer ns as well as City of Edmonds requirements.
required due to owner/developer
5,
REFERENCES:
Location and topographic map by Lovell?-Sauerland & Associates dated January
17,2001
Site plans
Site photographs
BACKGROUND:
The overall property consists of approximately 3.46 acr es and has never been
developed.
The property consists of a lower zone (propos ed Lot Nos. 9 & 10) along
the sed eight (8) lot single family
Edmonds Way, and an upper zone consisting of propo
residence developm ent with cul-de-sac access.
A relatively steep "bluff -face" distinguishes the lower zone from the upper zone.
it is understood that historic gravel excavation and mining occurred north of Edmonds
"bluff -face" (see survey top ographic map for
P9
Way creating the over -steepened apparent
.
specific bluff face delineation).
a
Visual evaluation of the property revealed no evidence of any geotechnic I
distress: no slides, no settlements, no shifting, no soil creep, nor any erosional
degradation were observed.
The property immediately to the west consists of a gasoline service station and
"bluff
i
-M
car wash. The service station has utilized a rockery along th e base of the -face" to
SOILS FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE - DESIGN PERMIT LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442
L ....... . ..
chi
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 2
provide erosion stability. No evidence of any geotechnical distress was observed along
the neighboring rockery.
It is understood that Michel Construction proposes to install a roadway access
(from the upper zone) extending 96th Ave. W and developing eight single family
residence lots (see site plan).
Additionally, the lower zone is to be developed into two lots (Lots No. 9 and 10)
.06;
for service station expansion and/or church parking lot expansion (to be determined).
EVALUATION:
In order to augment the existing site geotechnical information, soil test. holes
were hand dug by this engineer on April 2, 2001 for the proposed upper eight (8) lots. A
total of eight (8) test holes were dug. All hand dug test holes revealed similar; subgrade
conditions, namely:
0" to 6" Organics, roots, and organic silt
6" to approx. 14" Light brown/reddish-brown sandy loam.
Grading to sandy silt
C
14" to approx. 38" Increasingly dense sandy silt/Weathered
(bottom of test hole) glacial till (hard pan).
No water was encountered in any of the eight test holes. All test hole walls
remained vertical and stable. No sloughing or caving occurred.
No test holes were dug in the lower zone (Lots 9 and 10). This lower zone has
functioned as a parking area on extremely dense, compacted gravels.
CONCLUSIONS I RECOMMENDATIONS:
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in
the area, the property at 9601 Edmonds Way is geotechnically approved for the
proposed Michel Construction eight (8) unit single family residences with road access
(upper zone), subject to the following:
Standard reinforced continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
pressure: 2,000 P.S.f.
Setback distances (Lots 6, 7, and 8): A nominal setback distance of twenty (20)
feet from top -of -slope may be used for preliminary house siting purposes.
-Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 3
Specific geotechnical recommendations may reduce this nominal setback
distance once final house plans are provided this engineer.
Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining wall
design provided drainage zone is inspected and verified by this engineer. tot pA-
For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350
P.O.
Geotechnical inspection by this engineer 2�qr to any foundation concrete
placement.
"rhe 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 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.
Depending on the final site grades, some overexcavation may be required below
footings to expose competent native soils. Unless lean concrete is used to fill the over
excavated hole, the width of the overexcavation at the bottom must be at least as wide
as the sum of two times the depth of the overexcavation and the footing width. For
G.L.C. Construction example, an overexcavation extending two feet below the bottom of
a three-foot wide footing must be at least seven feet wide at the base of the excavation.
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.Q. 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:
-Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 4
Parameter
Coefficient of Friction
Passive Earth Pressure
Where:
r]
Design Value
0.55 '1/
35a p.c.f.
M
(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-OWGRADIE:
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent nativ:e soils or
on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils
be to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath
can recompacted prior
theslab. 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.
PERMAN NT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALL$:
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist lateral
earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The f6llowing
recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12) feet in height which
restrain level backfill:
Parameter
Active Earth Pressure*
Passive Earth Pressure
Coefficient of Friction
Soil Unit Weight
Where:
Design Value
35 p.c.f.
350 p.c.f.
125 _ p.c.f.
p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot
(2)
Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid
W
rw
densities.
1�
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 5
a
For restrained walls which cannot defect at least 0.002 times the wall
height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (1100 p.s.f. should be
added to the active equivalent fluid pressure).
The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and
retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the
walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding.
rn!
The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures
behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the
walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above
M
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.
MR,
Heavy construction equipment should not be operated behind retaining and
10
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 (118) inches of any retaining oi(f% �datio�nwa�lls
V
should be free-drainina structural fill containing no organics. This backfill should contain
-p--ei-rcerit
no more than silt or c* 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
U4
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
.65,
should be hydraulically connected to the foundation drain system. The purpose of these
Z.
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
Mr. Rob Michei
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 6
four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary cuts having a
height greater than four (4) f - eet,.the cut should have an inclination no steeper than 1: 1
(Harizontal: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 erosioh and improve stability of the surficial
layer of soil.
The apparent "bluff -face" reveals extremely dense, glacially compacted,
"hardpan" soils. The slope cut is geotechnically stable, and requires no additional
retaining or stabilization measures. Some select grading/trimming is recommended to
remove occasional zones of overburdened soils. This engineer envisions slight
grading/trimming to achieve a more uniform slope face.
If desired, a toe -of -slope stabilization wall may be utilized to prevent ongoing
erosional sloughing. Ecology block, rockery, or key stone block may be utilized along
the base of slope. Specific designs by this engineer recommended.
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining wal s
These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches oTo:-ne-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 syste-m-.-
No groundwater was observed in any of the test pits during the field work.
Seepage into the planned excavation is possible, and likely if excavation occurs during
winter months, and if encountered should be drained away from the site by use of
drainage ditches, perforated pipe, French drains, or by pumping from sumps
interconnected by shallow connector trenches at the bottom of the excavation.
The excavation of the site should be graded so that surface water is directed off
the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any
area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed
I
C
C)�
lw�
a:
0,
E
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 7
slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas
adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building,
except where the area adjacent to the building is paved.
GENERAL EARTHWORK AND STRUCTURAL FILL:
The proposed building and pavement areas should be stripped and cleared of all
surface vegetation, all organic matter, and other deleterious material. The stripped or
removed materials should not be mixed with any materials to be used as structural fill.
Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind permanent
retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying soils needs to
support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions during and after excavation
prior to placement of any structural fill.
All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture 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 of Fill Placement
Beneath footings, slabs or walkways
Behind retaining walls
Beneath pavements
Minimum Relative
Compaction
95%
90%
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-1 557-78 (Modified Proctor).
Ini
Lit.
.10
-C
Z'
' Z
Z'
�_ I
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 8
Use of On -Site Soils
If grading activities take place during wet weather, or when the silty, on -site soils
are wet, site preparation costs may be higher because of delays due to rains and the
potential need to import granular fill. The on -site soils are generally silty and thus are
moisture sensitive. Grading operations will be difficult when the moisture c6ntent 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 may be acceptable if the upper
organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering
inspection.
DRAINAGE CONTROLS:
No drainage problems were evident with the approximately three and one-half (3
%) acre site at 9601 Edmonds Way. Surface runoff flows generally southerly following
the native topography. Compliance with standard storm water detention methods in
accordance with City of Edmonds requirementsare geotechnically acceptable.
EDMONDS COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT CODE 20.11513.1110:
This engineer has reviewed Edmonds Community Development Code (ECDC)
regarding exemption criteria.
This engineer believes that the property at 9601 Edmonds Way qualifies for such
exemption.
The proposed Michel Construction development will not decrease stability on
any adjacent property and the site following the permitted activity. The site itself
and adjacent property will be stable within the meaning of chapter 19.05 ECDC,
as demonstrated by engineering analysis meeting requirements of the state
building code as adopted by this Code. Key geotechnical inspection by this
engineer to verify.
r.r I
M
W
Z�
V�"'
iZ
Z
0!.
.4,
M
CY,
r-7
L—:J
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 9
The steep slope portions of this property are mapped as the following deposits
on the "Geologic Map of the East and Part of the Edmond's West Quadrangels"
by James P. Minard (Department of the Interior U.S.G.S. 1983, Map MF-1541):
till.
No excavations will occur on the steep slopes.
No retaining structures are necessary nor envisioned on the steep slopes. As
discussed, an erosion stabilization rockery may be utilized at the base -of -slope.
This erosion stabilization structure is not necessary nor is considered a retaining
structure.
None of the following conditions are present on or adjacent to the portion of the
-bedded with
property classified as a steep slope: impermeable soils inter
granular soils, springs or ground water seepage, significant visible evidence of
ground water seepage, previous landslide or instability, or existing landslide
deposits.
The thickness of organics, debris, weathered soils, colluvial soils or soils
exhibiting loose conditions (as measured by the standard penetration test (ASTM
D1 586) method of sampling) on or adjacent to the portion of the subject
properties classified as a steep slope do not exceed three (3) feet.
Thus, the property qualifies for exemption.
CONCRETE:
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.)
shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement
Any fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation
M
4
0
P-
M
Mr. Rob Michel
Michel Construction, Inc.
April 30, 2001
Page 10
SUMMARY:
The proposed Michel Construction, Inc. ten lot development of eight single family
residences at 9601 Edrronds Way is geatechnically viable when constructed in
accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds
approved plans and requirements, and key gootechnical inspection during construction.
GEOTECHNICAL REVIEW OF PLANA:
As discussed, the proposed eight lot development is geotechnically viable. It is
essential, however, that this engineer review finial plans for the upper eight houses, as
well as any development on the lower portion of the property prior to permit issuance.
This final geolechnical review will allow for verification of -geotechnical criteria to be
made. Recommendations or plan modifications to improve geotechnical compliance
may also occur upon final review.
CLOSURE:
The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in accordance
with generally accepted professional engineering principles and practice. No other
warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions are based on the results
of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface conditions between explored
locations. If conditions are encountered during construction that appear to be different
than those described in this report, this engineer should be notified to observe the
situation and review and verify or modify the recommendations.
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call.
Inims -12—MV ZI
DMB:abj
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
Mi.
0
M
Z;
a
Height Calculation/Grading Verification Worksheet -
Addnw: 0 C3 dwstj permit #:,4 0-IF- 6 q 7 7
DaW:
A. Datum Point: 14
B. Datum Point Elevation:
..a Average Grade:
3. Maximum Ele*donAUowe&.'�1'3�-%Agvemgcpu&)+2.5?'-
4.. Reibrence Point Elevation Shot to Hous6:
T&S6 (datum elevatlon).+e� �-S (grade to tra sit level line shot to hous�)
6. Measurements. from line shot -onto house to roof ridge:
U 40
Total: T
7. ActualBlevation: ��015�(refereippe point elevation) +X�Slmeasylreimenitsfrom
Nd)=
Condidon:
4-(&-9 _(adua04gkiter ess (aH9wed); thiCre'fore the.hoiise.W
O�iDir c' .. ... . %.. I .. . . . .
is not over the height requiremen per �ZCDC 16.2030 requirements
Fn!.
M,
."n C. 1891,
CITY OF EDMONDS
121 STH AVENUE NORTH -EDMONDS. WA98M - (425) 771�= *FAX (425) 771-Ml
WebSite: wwd.edmondsma-us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning e Building 9 Engineering
October 30, 2003
Martens Construction, Inc.
Attn: Jack Marten
PO Box 13858
Mill Creek, WA 98082
Building Permit: 2003-0477
Site Address: 22809 96th PL W
Expiration Date: 7/3/04
Dear Jack Marten:
GARY HAAKENSON
MAYOR
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaimig�inspection on your
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file.
The City considers the final inspection. to be one of the most important inspections
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be com i plete:
smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-strippingi any
Engineering department requirements etc. Of course not all of these things may
specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things
that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
paint, carpet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised permits expire one year from
the date of issuance. If you will need more time to complete the work, permits can be
renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final
approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees are required in order to renew the
permits This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check -your
permit expiration date and call for the required final inspection(s). Note: If more than
one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card.
Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
Permit Coordinator
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekinan, Japan
_7
Co
0
M
4�'
0
V
(W`
6.,
M
FINAL PBMCT APPROVAL FORM
TO:
DATE:
MEMO TO: PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUII.DING DIVISION
FROM: FIRE DEPARTMENT DATE______�
�n �_Y7� Lrzu 14,72424 ENGINEERING DIVISION DATE_�/_Z�
PLANNING DIVISION DATE_____�
PROJ
SITE ADDRESS—Z-224646)
z _ADB# -DATE INSPECTED
PERMIT
OF WORK TO BE INSPECIM
DESCRIPTION
:,-,A . field Inspe . ction was conducted to determine final compliance with.approved plans. Final approval
o objections from the above signed Department to the. release of
denotes that there am a
UNCE B and the granting of
4_GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
GRAM PROJECT APPROVAL wrni CONDITIONS NOTED
13 1 of CONDITIONS given to owner/Contractor by inspector
COPY
FAMED FINAL INSPECTION - OUTSTANDING ISSUES by inspector.
a Copy of CORRECTION NOTICE given to Owner/cOntractOr
2.
RE -INSPECTED OUTSTANDING ISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROJECT APPROVAL
Si-
oWrv1.doc.1:temp:b1dg:fbr=10/01
a
19
z
9
0
M
=i:fl
M
C
M
0
80
C
-4 C
3: M
M
Z
3:
0 _n
n
M M
q
0
0 M
C (J)
M CO)
Q 0
Z r-
z
z
9
0
M
PATE RECEIVED
-111
FPER MIT EXPIRES
CITY OF EDMONDS
U%
zo 1E__
PERMIT
NUMBER
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION
JOB
ADDRESS
702!
OWNER NAMEINAME OF BUSINESS
__ C
AIA912-775VS i��4,57—
PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISIONpo. OT NO. LID NO.
15
MAILING ADDRESS
LID FEE $
An z2o'�� /28'-03
PUBLIC RIGHT OF W//
I k1b 'P APProved
PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW rpermit Requ:red
street Use Perm t Rsq'd
CITY TELEPHONE
ZIP
EXISTING — PROPOSE�'p inspection Required 13
Sidewalk Required 13
Undorgrowd
ELI- C 2 921 V.2S_-7q_f-j;20 a6
REQUIRED DEDICATION
Wiring required 0
N E z
METER SIZE
I
LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
13 z
Lk�_
-��
A
YESA NO
ADDRESS
REMARKS z
OWNER/CONTRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROUDRAINAGE
-7�
31 2=
(otj (zTI6WrUN)r
CITY zip TELEPHONE
q -71W a a
=T
__7
NA!!�� A
CBL
ff) �711 AA L-
ENGINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
cc
ADDO"MSO
(21LA0.1-L
k 16' a �2
99ja
DkE
FIRE REVIEWED BY
lz
CITY ZIP TELEPHONE
M
M/zz
�Lf - - v�
VARIANCE OR CU
SHORELINEORADBN INSPECTION BOND
STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY
RECI&O POSTED
I
-*;?;a skA
�2-1s--oql
OYES $
SEPA REVIEW
SIGN AREA HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO.
COMPLETE EXEMPT
ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED
,
, 411
EXP
_51
NEW RESIDENTIAL
PLUMBING MECH
LOT COVERAGE REQUInED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SET13ACKS (Ft.)
ALLOWED PROPOSED FRONT SIDE REAR FRONT LJRSIDE REAR
ADDITION COMMERCIAL
COMPLIANCE OR
CHANGE OF USE
.354 A49.
- -7
7 f; .5. 15 3z. 7-5 7-4
PARKING
LOT AREA PLANNING, REVIEWED BY DATE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY
0 SIGN
REQ`D PROVIDED
ft
-!�tMNCE
100
_N -
GRADING
0 REPAIR CYDS
X Fn
REMARKS
V
DEMOLISH
OTHER
Apia
I 'IN
I
GARAGE RE'lAININGWALL
F RE SPRINKLER
CARPORT ROCKERY
FIRE ALARM
(TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
CHECKED BY TYPE OFIer
ST U TI ON OCCUPANT
ICnnr=7
GROUP12
q
1
NUMBER UMBER OF
OF DWELLING
�IJNITS
CRITICAL
AR
SPECIAL. INS PFPTION. JAR
EA Ul.A;UFAN I
STORIES :2-
4A
M E 4M
REQUIRED AYES
LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE
REMARKS
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER Ui3C 108/FINAL INSPECTION REG-0 E
<
Z.
VALUATION
Description
Plan Check
-744-4-S-
FEE Description FEE
State Surcharge
HEAT SOURCE LA23NG % ,..LOT SLOPE
T75� 00
�z
Building Permit
City Surcharge
city
PLAN CHECKNO- VESTED PL�TE
Plumbing
Mechanical
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY -OVERS UK TO
THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMrlr C
I= BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERITll' ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
Grading
:21 DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS. MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
C9��'
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Engr. Review
R
PERMITAPPLICATION: 180DAYS
CL PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN ISO DAYS
Engr. Inspection
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
'C N BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE. HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUC6ES6RS
Fire Review
Plan Chk. Deposit
N'ITErVAGREES TO INDEMNIFY. DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
EDMONDS. WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection
Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT... ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMEO.TO Moon WAIVE OR REDUCE MY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE
Landscapeinsp.
Total Amt. Due
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITTS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISI
#
Recording Fee
Receipt
I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION;!,Tki�Tk INFORhUTION'
APPLICATION APPIRW 11
GIVEN IS COAPE" AND THAT I AM THE OVINER,-ffTHE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS hEGULATING CONSTRUC-
CALL
This application Is not a permit until aloned by the k'
TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO
FOR INSPECTION
Building official or his/her Deputy: and Foos are paid, and
receipt is acknowledged In space provided.
WORKMENS COMPENSA71ON INSURANCE AND RCW 18.27.
OFFICIALVGNA�T4 DATE
SIGNATURYWN? GENT) DATE SIGNED
1425)
2
�A
N
771 -0220
LEAS90 BY DATE
2,
ATTdNTIOPi Wlel#
IT IS UNLAW"" i ( A JIL�?LNCG OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
FUL TO USE P_&
EXT 1333
L
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI-
ORIGINAL -FILE YELLOW
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109
PINK -OWNER GOLD -ASSESSOR
04/02 PRESS HARD G - REEN AC . COLIN . TIN . G --
I
z
9
0
m
-4 -n
ro �
am
C:
rn
80
C:
5� c
m
m z
ID —1
z
co
0
m
DO—)
0
C)
cl)
co
0
CO)
z
9
0
m