The URL can be used to link to this page

20040697.pdfDATE RECEIVED L; SE f%lory f�%r: ZONE CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS �, Lhr-1 IrV� MAIL ING ADDRESS .4 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE M rv� c/ i- U W t ADDRESS U ,C CITY ZIP TEI.EPHONE NAME ICBLts U K(--)Ill I zhrl x ADDRESS C; 4 x CITY iPtt[ TEL.FP I 10 N E 0 �zl 0 STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CV� PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. '16-74EW _��RESIDENTIAL . I PLUMBING / MECH F ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR CHANGE OF USE REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REPAIR GRANG 2 4— CYDS FENCE I X FT DEMOLISH El TANK OTHER GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER ALARM CARPORT PLOCKERY FIRE (TYPE OF USE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: e�_, rv,-,t /V1 'I � I NUMBER,,j OF NUMBER OF DWELLIIJG CRITICAL AREAS STORIES UNITS NUMBER DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE Em -:;;, "-�ok ) . SOURCE GLAZING % LOT St.OPE % VEST ED DAT1r_ PLAN CHECK NO:,-;/, tv 1, ev THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT CdVERS 'WORK TO t: BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS. MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. Ir PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS W 91. PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 160 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION in 'APPI ICAN 1, ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCFSORS in W IN INTEREST, AGREES 10 INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOID HARMIFSS THE CITY OF _1 2 EDMONDS, WASHING ION, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANYAND Ir At.L. CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NAIURF, ARISING 0IRFCfIY Oil INDiHECIIY 4 x FROM THE ISSUANCE OF 1111S PERMIT ISSUANCF OF THIS PERMIT SliAtl NOT BE a -1 DEEMED TO MODIFY. WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY RFQLIIIIFkiEN] OF ANY CITY ORDINANCF 0 Noll I IMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY'S ABIL11Y 10 ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE TIIAT I HAVE READ PITS APPUCATION, THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT, AND THAT I AM THE OWNER. OR THE DUTY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGUt-ATING CONSTRUG TION, AND IN DOING IIIE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION qFTItE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORK2S,C�MPEN'SA1lON I =E AND RCVV 113 27 D�.TE SIGNFD I JOB I PERMIT EXPIRES PERMIT W�l NUMBER ,�o(i 7 SUITE/APT# ADDRESS �, -�) I I I C, f t �,_) , , '_ _I --- f�,,� , - __ , , wwmmwx� PLAT NAMEISUBDIVISION NO LOT NO LID NO� FEE 71 LID $ PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP I �SCP Approved FJW Permit Required street use Permit Roq'd EXISTING PROPOSED Inspection Ractumirid Side�alk Requited RE-QUIRED DEDICATION F1 Undelground Witing roquand METER SIZE LINE SIZE 1 1 NO, OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED .3111"ei 0, / 11 1*- /1 — NO 11 REMARKS OWNERICONIRACTOR RESPONSIBi-E FOR EROSION CONIROL/DRAINAGE 2 � --) I., I , — - — — - 11 \ - /,T.N — - 1J,t,-r F 0 /�R-) C-.T-0 P_ 1%-1 (4) _<� F. L"),:: REVIEWED By REVIEWED BY DATE W z z E5 z uj Lu cc rZ VARIANCE OR Cu SHORELINE Oil ADBI INSPECTION BOND REO D . I POSTED YES O(NO $ SEPA REVIEW COMPLETE EXEMPT SIGN AREA ALLOWE D PROPOSED I HEIGHT ALLOWE PROPOSED . I 10/0 -3 - 1 - 0 �q q it LOT COVERAGE ALLOWED PROPOSED REQUIRED SETBAPKS StRE N -FRO �Pp PROPOSQ SETBACKS (FT.) IJR-ai� � MEAR' 3 5 'K A0 c, t(FFn /1 15 /),o 15 51 5.1 - �, / 15 " ZE — z PARKING REO'D PROVIDED I-OT AREA , PrNNING RkVIEWID Vy DATE I oqq REMARKS CHECKED BY I TYPE r e��7 I� e0-6-1 I SPECIAL - INSPECTION TAAEA 7 REQUIRED OCCUPANT GROUP 17 j OCCUPANT I-OAD REMARKS 0 PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D VALUATION $ Description FEE, Description FEE Plan Check State Surcharge L Building Permit City Surcharge Plumbing 7 2 Base Fee Mechanical -70 Grading q0 Engr. Review Engr. Inspection Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit qA1 Fire Inspection Receipt # & Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due q Iq 4))1) Recording Fee Receipt # APPLICATION APPROVAL CALL I his application Is not a permit until signed by the Building Official or his/tier Deputy and Fees are paid, and FOR INSPECTION receirit isacknowledged it) space provided OFFICIALS-siGNA 11 1 DATE il i N, / , X (425) '4�, , 771-0220 RFi FASFD I WE �MEMTION XI 1333 � J, IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL X/ A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL Oil A CERTIFI- OPIGINAL FILV_ YELLOW - INSPEC / TOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK GOLD ASSESSOR 0903 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES 411" z 0 4 0 M :� =-n 0 rn C M 0 0 —1 0 0 C:: -j g af rn M Z 0 --1 x U) o n n M M 0 _U) 0 r_ 0 M C U) 9 Cn M Z M r z Cl) z 0 i 0 M �PROV6D, By PLANNING 17 AVE. GRADE A. 252.66' B. 258.50' C. 258.83' D. 253.00' / 4 = 255.75' MAX HEIGI-IT: 280.75' ACTUAL HEIGHT: 280.125' FOOTING = 252.00' 1ST FL. 257.00' 2NT FL. 267-00" IMPERVIOUS AREA BUILDING: 2,145.25 SQ. FT. DRIVEWAY: 510 SQ. FT. R,\TIO: 339.95 SQ. FT TOTAL: 3,995.20 SQ. FT. LOT COVERAGE: 2,551.04/12,549.18 = 20% PTA: 270-3250-0201-700 FILTER FENCE 7�HEL CONSTRUCTION, INC 821 PINE STREET EDMONDS, WA. 98020 VERTICAL DATUM: CATCH DA51N KIM LOCATED AT5.E. INTEK5ECTION OF &TH AVE & FINE 5T. ELEV: 247.00 e7t r— AUG ,"itPPROVLE-D AS NOTED ERING �0',,INIV�C] ON-V 'OH111,100 NOISOU3 BY ENGINE AA "W"t T #1 Date: L E TOI-'=--,�52.3FA 6 1E 246.97 N 8906T46' W 11-54t EXPOS&S ANEPOI BE COVERED WITHIN 2 DAYS, ? it 11c, -=GT5- �etback� Front Sid Rear Other LA Ll e ig�h � — SCALE: 1" = 20.00' WL +ro 0� — — — — — — — — — — — / — — — -- — — — — — — — — - B PROP95ED H01U5E LOT14 (521) CLEAN OU/ mallow 1 00-00 99.26' ,71-2�55 I I DF WATEL dS INSPECTIONS -42VrT "-22 WL OEM 1 260 ' - AUowm 14% STREET 0 U4 0 0 Uj LU F— Lo aw ce) qqr 0 cr- =r- 0 53 0 < C/) L 7 5 �— fc� C-) Lu LL LLA Lu I -- A N V Height Calculation Worksheet Address: r), ? Lt yll-� Date: Inspector(s): M '. L 1. Datum Point: z 2. Datum Point Elevation: .7- '4 1 0 0 3. Average Grade: -:2, s -i 4. M imum. Elevation Aflowed: er-a ax j5j-S (av gib V ade) 41 25 1 -S 5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: (datum elevation) + rZ., i (grade to transit level line'shot to house) 6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge: -7. q Tofid:-21-0- --I 7. Actual Elevation: �L 9 -1 , t (reference point elevation) + aa,-j (measurements from #6) Conclusion: 9_-jej ci( _ (actual) is greater / &ban Zjgo,-jS (allowed); therefore the house is/ is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements Dennis M. Bruce, RE. ('+ a-00's- M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer 7-o -- - C ( -c "f e OA0 �j - fAteVE-U e) p e,-r. e� (tM LT 'PIEFtWT c ;:F6 t L t PA --fly TYMi 0 �j e�r. L Rb e g E-p- A P, � �-L)Q F - ,j egA-AUC-6) Itj �IF�S6� T, yEa -gp�su L (&j F (3A-r 0 e5 p- At C- sott'j. P, M r:F� o'k -r6-mp I 1;V4 to �u 1. pC-WeI06 xoeecb Ftj C 64, e67 (tAM 1740 A-p -r( K) NAL tms—tAt'Lel A PP k6u6l 6-0 &LL S�50A-t- HAUI� 3CrIJ SOILS . FOUAtDA 7ZONS - SITE DEIIEZOPUEN7- INSPECTION DRAIIVAG_r DL--SIGN & pc-RA417- LEGAL P.O. 13O)RESCEIM" WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 JUN 14 2005 DEVELOPMENT SERVICES C;TR. CITY OF EDMONDS z 0 1 0 m -i -n 5; -a-': 0 M C m 0 -i (-) 0 C M M z C) --4 C -Z o -n n m M 0 0 0 M C ch 9 (n M 0 Z z --I X 6 z 0 1 0 m GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR ONDS CITY OF EDM -022 1 5) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771 EDMONDS. WA 98020 (42 121 5TH AVENUE NORTI Website: www.ci.edniondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning Building Engineering C) March 21, 2005 Z onst I ioll Inc. Michel C rL ct 0 St. SW 002 7907212 0 M Edmonds, WA 98026 =i -n Re: Building Pernlit: 2004-0697 M C M Site Address: 821 Pine St 0 ate: 08/20/05 Expiration D 0 0 M Dear Michel Construction, M Z 10 ction on your tter is to info you that the last remaining inspe C Z The purpose of this le rm > ection(s) deteirilines that there are no project is a final inspection(s). The final insp approval allows'the City to close your peniiit file. U5 outstanding life -safety issues.and -n t inspections The City,considers the Final inspection to be one of the most importan he following must be complete: M M conducted oil a project. In order to grant final approval t if -close doors between garage 0 co smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, se 0 r- I r, r-stripping, any 0 M afety glazing weathe C and residence, egress from sleeping roonls, s 5 co things may entsetc. Of course not all, ofthese 9 Cl) Engineering department requirem M 0 t but it does give you an idea about the kinds of things Z specifically apply to your projec that do not need to be installed such as: that must be complete as well as some items ire one.year from er, etc. Please be advised permits exP paint, carpet, moldings, wallpap time to complete the work, permits can be if you will need more > the date of issuance Z piration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final_ renewed prior to ex e required in order to renew the M approval granted by the Building Inspector, full fees ar you to check your permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage Z expiration date and call for the required- final inspection(s). Note: If more than 0 pen -nit I one department is required to final your project, this is noted oil your Job. Card. 0 M Please feel free to contact me at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, a JoAn Zilla if Permit Specialist 1890 Incorporated August I Sister City - Hekinan, Japan Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer July 2, 2004 Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. 7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102 Edmonds, Washington 98026 Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report" Proposed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development 8 th Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington ReCEIVE:0 JUL - 6 2004 PERMIT COUNTER This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation of the property at the N.E. corner of 8h Ave. S. and Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington, with respect to the proposed 8 lot development. This evaluation was required due to owner / developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds requirements. REFERENCES: Survey by L.S.A. Location map Site plan CITY Ce%1V% Project drainage plan by Donna Breske, PE "iry Photographs BACKGROUND: The proposed eight lot project, to be constructed by Michel Construction, Inc., will occupy the majority of the overall property, with access drive to 7 lots off 8" Ave S. SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERMIT - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, Washington 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 546-8442 z 0 4 0 M --i -n rn 0 0 0 C -49 3: M M z 10 -q C 0 -n n M M 0 0 M C: co 9 co M 0 Z 3: z z 0 i 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 81h Ave. S & Pine Street Pagetwo CHARACTERISTICS: A survey of the subject property was conducted on June 12, 2004 by L.S.A. The property is rectangular, and consists of approximately 62,510 frontage feet along the east side of 81h Ave. S and 179.26 frontage feet along the north side of Pine Street. The adjoining properties, as well as the neighborhood, consist of single family residences on similar size lots. The subject property contains mature trees, shrubs, and lowland grassy areas. The property is moderately sloped (less than 14%), and drains southwesterly to the existing wetland. EVALUATIO : Visual assessments of the property at the N.E. corner of 8" Ave. S and Pine 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 8 new single family residences. This engineer evaluated the 81' Ave. S & Pine Street property on July 1, 2004. Significant clearing, grading, and drainage work had already occurred. (see photographs). The S.W. corner of the property is understood to be designated a W.Z., in accordance with drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. The utility work has exposed a large number of "soil test trenches" throughout the property. Subgrade conditions were uniform. 0 -8" "Former" grasses, roots, organic silt (removed as of July 1, 2004) 8"-16" Sandy loam, medium dense 16"-4' Dense to very dense slightly sandy SILT.- Z 0 4 0 M q Fn- U5 M 0 0 --10 0 C --i K X M M Z CD 0 71 n MM 0 -C/) 0 r- 0 M C (1) C 0) Q 0 Z r- .AT X --I X Z CD Z 0 1 0 M 9 Michel Construction, Inc. / 81h Ave. S & Pine Street Page three Ground water was present in the southern portion of the property. See photographs. This engineer has reviewed drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. and concurs with the system of drains and detention for geotechnical integrity. The very dense subgrade soils will provide excellent foundation bearing with proper drainage controls. CONCLUSIONS / RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar sites in the area, the property at 8 1h Ave. S and Pine Street is geotechnically approved for the proposed Michel Construction 8 lot S.F.R. development, subject to the following: a Standard reinforcing continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. 0 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. Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete placement. The proposed structures can be supported on conventional continuous and spread footings bearing on undisturbed native soils or on structural fill placed above native soils. See the later sub -section entitled General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footings should have minimum widths of Z 0 1 0 M --i -n M C M 0 0 0 C -i K X M M Z 01 _Z Cl) 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M cl) C/) Q 0 Z X Z C1) Z 0 1 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street Page four 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. Footings constructed according to the above recommendations may be designed for an allowable soil bearing pressure of two thousand (2,000) 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: Parameter- Design Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Where: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. z 0 i 0 M =i =5 C M M 0 0 0 C --I K 3: M M Z r.) -4 C _Z cl) 0 -n n M M, 055 0 r- 0 M C cl) 9 C/) M 0 Z ;U --I 3: z 0) z 0 i 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" Ave. S & Pine Street Page five A safety factor of at least 1.5 is recommended for design of the foundation's resistance to lateral loading. SLABS -ON -GRADE: Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils provided these soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12 inches for sealing purposes. PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND 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: Parameter 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: (i ) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). z 0 1 0 M -i -n Cl) M M 0 -40 0 C M M Z 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M Cj) CO) Q 0 Z > z C/) z 0 i 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 81h Ave. S & Pine Street Page six The values given above are to be used for design of permanent foundation and retaining walls only. An appropriate safety factor should be applied when designing the walls. We recommend using a safety factor of at least 1.5 for overturning and sliding. The above design values do not include the effects of any hydrostatic pressures behind the walls and assume that no surcharge slopes or loads will be placed above the walls. If these conditions exist, then those pressures should be added to the above lateral pressures. Also, if sloping backfill is desired behind the walls, then we will need to be given the wall dimensions and slope of the backfill in order to provide the appropriate design earth pressures. Heavy co.nstruction 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 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. z 0 1 0 M :qii 0 M C MO 0 —1 0 0 C --I K M M M Z _Z cl) 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M Cn C() Q 0 Z z --i 3: CO z 0 1 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" Ave. S & Pine Street Page seven EXQ NVATION 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. DR . IONS: 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. The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed off the site and away from the tops of slopes. Water should not be allowed to stand in any area where foundations, slabs, or pavements are to be constructed. Any exposed slopes to be covered with plastic to minimize erosion. Final site grading in areas adjacent to buildings should be sloped at least two (2) percent away from the building, except where the area adjacent to the building is. paved. Z 0 4 0 M M C 0 M 0 0 C: -4 K 7: M M Z 0 71 n M M 0 0 0 M co Cf) M 0 Z ;0 Z __4 X C/) Z 0 M 0 Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" Ave. S & Pine Street Page eight 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 Minimum RelativeCompaction Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95% Behind retaining walls 90% Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level Where: Minimum relative compaction is the ratio, expressed in percentages, of the compacted dry density to the maximum dry density, as determined in accordance with ASTM Test Designation D-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 Z 0 I 0 M :q 9 F71 --I 0 M C M 0 0 0 0 C: M M Z X Cn o -n n M M 055 0 r- 0 M C Cn 90) M 0 Z .A X __1 3: Z Z 0 1 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street Page nine 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 91pumping" 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: The overall property at 8 th & Pine contains upslope seepage. The road (8'h Ave. S.) has created a long term historical "dam". Thus, the S.W. corner of the property has become a man-made "moisture -zone". Drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. have incorporated intercept drains, tightlines and detention/ orifice mitigations. Geotechnically, this engineer will provide onsite inspections to verify proper foundation subgrade conditions exist prior to any concrete placement. CONCRETE All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls, etc.) shall have a mmli�imum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of concrete mix. INSPECTIOW. The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction: Z 0 i 0 M M C M 0 0 0 C: —4 K 3: M M Z 10--i C CD 0 -ri n 3:9 M M 0 0 0 M C Cn 9 Cn M C) Z ;U __4 r Z _H M (n Z 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h Ave. S & Pine Street Page ten Soil cuts Foundation subgrade verification Retaining wall, or rockery placement Any fill placement Subsurface drainage installation Temporary and final erosion control measures. SUMMARY: The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8th & Pine Edmonds, is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction. 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. mop-, I A-A"nop" I- '( AIL re'VIRES -1 z 0 4 0 M --i -n Cl) M C M 0 --10 0 C M M z J0 C F— Cl) 0 -n n mm C) 0 0 M C Cn 90) Q 0 Z X z z 0 —1 0 M MICROFILM QEagle Eye Consulting Engineers PO BOX 523 Olalla WA 98359 C:206 356-7790 P:253 857-4939 August 18, 2004 To: Michel Construction 7907 212 SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98027 Re: Michel Single Family Horne Edmonds, Washington 98026 Client's Reference Number 04-254 EECE # ED04-05 This project is approved for "Architectural, Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical, VIAQC and Energy" Permit only. The drawing review has been completed and accepted for permit with the Approved Stamped drawings returned to the City of Edmonds on August 18,2004. This prqJect has been redlined on sheet S-3 ). Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Department plan review, when comments are received from the other concerned departments. Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857-415 t between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. City of Edmonds By: z/v—� Hoyt Yete'r, rE,--f President z 0 1 0 M Dennis M. Bruce, RE. M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer September 29, 2004 City of Edmonds 121 5 1h Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Field Reports / Geotechnical law-ections Michel Construction Project 481n and Pine-) 8 New Single Family Residences lqr ,CFIVED WISION ,93'1 This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for the 8 new residences at 8th and Pine (by Michel Construction Inc.). REFERENCES: • Geotechnical report by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004 • City of Edmonds approved project plans for 8 new residences • Inspection authorization by City of Edmonds 0 Construction photographs BACKGROUND: Michel Construction has received permits for the construction of 8 new residences at the northeast intersection of 8 th Ave. and Pine St. This engineer prepared a geotechnical report dated July 2, 2004 with criteria for foundation work, excavation, and rockeries. Excavation for the project began in August of 2004 (see photographs). This engineer provided daily onsite inspections during periods of active excavation and foundation work. 915 8 1h Ave. S. (2004-0714): All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. SOIL 3 - FOUNDA RONS - S1 TE DE VEL OPMEN T - INSPEC TION - DRA INA GE - DESIGN & PERA41 T - L EGA L P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 Z 0 M --i -n M M 0 C-) 0 C M M Z JO --i C F— Cn 0 -n n i M M 0 0 0 M Cn W M C) Z W Z Z 0 1 0 M City of Edmonds September 29, 2004 Page 2 of 3 921 8 Ih Ave. S. goo4-07131: All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 p.s.t. ventied. --UK' to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 925 81h Ave. S. (20Q4-_06981: All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 p-s-f. verified. "OK'to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 933 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-071pi: All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 p-s-t- verified. "OK to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 945 8" Ave. s,. 2004�-07121 All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 P-s-t- verified. --QK to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 953 8" _Ave. S. L200 1 �-071 11: All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. venTied. "OW to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 959 81h Ave. S. L200--07_99A: All excavation stable and approved. Soil d with foundation formwork, bearing of 2,000 p-s-t. venTied. OK'to procee reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 7A: All excavation stable and approved. Soil 821 Pine St. 2004-069_ -01C to proceed with foundation formwork, bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. verified. reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. SUMMARY: Geotechnical inspections yerified proper work through this date September 29, 2004. 0 The excavations for all 8 lots are stable and MRLO—yed. z 0 0 M C M 0 --10 0 C M MZ C 0 -n Ti -i ME M M 0 0 0 M C Cj) Q 0 Z ;U --I X > z 0) z 0 1 0 M City of Edmonds September 29, 2004 Page 3 of 3 Foundation bearing for all 8 residences was verified and approved for foundation placement. Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds. If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. V of WASI 17 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. ONA eotechnical / Civil Engineer G F,.XMES C)O C.C. Michel Construction Inc. 7907 212 1h St. SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 DMB:jpb z 0 i 0 M CD M C M 0 -40 0 M M z C 0 -n -n 3: M M 0 0 0 M C C/) 9 Cn M 0 Z z W z 0 1 0 M 0 Dennis M. Bruce, RE. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer RECEIVED December 30, 2004 JAN 6 4 20,95 City of Edmonds ENGNEERItjo DIVIC'11%) 121 5 th Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Field Reports / Geotechnical Inwections Michel Construction Project(_8 i_h_a_n_d_K 5_65-� ---------------- --- 8 New Residences This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 8 th and Pine. REFERENCES: 0 City of Edmonds approved project plans 0 Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004 0 Previous inspection reports 0 Photographs INSPECTIONS: This engineer has provided and continues to provide onsite geotechnical inspections as required by City of Edmonds authorization. 19 X I Pine St. (2004-0697): This engineer _verified proper placement of compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub - grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved. Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved plans and normal practices. The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were properly installed. 959 8 1h Ave. S. (2004-0709): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approved through this date (December 30, 2004). SOILS - FOUNDA TIONS - SIrE DEVELOPMENI- - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN & PERUIF - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 Z 0 i 0 M q 75 rn C 0 0 0 rn Z 10 C') o -n n 0 0 rn C CD 9 Cn M 0 Z Z Cn Z 0 City of Edmonds December 30, 2004 Page 2 of 3 953 8" Ave. S. (2004-0711): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approved through this date (December 30, 2004). 945 81h Ave. S. (2004-0712): This engineer yerified proper placement of compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub - grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved. Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved plans and normal practices. The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were properly installed. 933 81h Ave. S. (2004-0710): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approve through this date (December 30, 2004). 925 8" Ave. S. (2004-0698): This engineer yerified proper placement of compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub - grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved. Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved plans and normal practices. The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this engineer verified proper placement of the rockery. Base rocks were properly founded in dense native sub -grade soil. Rock size, rock linkage, and batter were properly installed. 921 81h Ave. S. (2004-0713): This engineer verified proper placement of structural fill material atop the dense native soils. As previously verified, the dense native soils easily provide a minimum of 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. Contractor chose to place rock as an improved sub -grade material. Placement of structural fill and compaction were inspected and are geotechnically approved. This engineer verified proper placement of subsurface drainage in accordance with approved plans and good practices. Z 0 1 0 !TI =i --fi U5 -j 0 M C M 0 0 0 C: M M Z JO --I C 0 -n n ;d _j > M 9 M M 0 0 0 M C: (/) 9 Cn M 0 Z X Z Z 0 1 0 M City of Edmonds December 30, 2004 Page 3 of 3 915 8" Ave. S. (2004-07141: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approve through this date (December 30, 2004). SUMMARY: • Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified proper foundation, drainage, and rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004). • No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurred to this site or neighboring properties as a result of the construction activities. • All geotechnical aspects are approve through this date (December 30, 2004). • Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds. If there are any questions, do, not hesitate to call. rg-�S�12123/- C.C. Michel Construction Inc. 7907 212 th St. SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 DMB:jpb g)Q � I vz: Dennis M. Bruce, P. E. Geotechnical / Civil Engineer z 0 1 0 M --i -T1 M C 0 M 0 --10 0 C --I r. i - X M M z 3: Cj) 0 -n n M M 0 0 0 M C C() K C0 Q 0 Z z --I 3: W z 0 M