The URL can be used to link to this page

20040698.pdfI FDATE -RECEIVED CITY OF EDMONDS CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS MAILING ADDRESS C ITY ZIP ITELEPHONE zi NAME 16 \\--I\ A t: ADDRESS I A)A\, I C U )2, cr x I q C�9 21 �7P `�A, CITY ZIP I TELEPHONE NAME CBL # PERMIT EXPIRES LO A—L 1111111 USE PERMIT NUMBER-, 17 ZONE OB SUITE/APT# JJA D DRE S S (—,.e 441 t\ PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION 140. LOT NO. LID NO. P_ 0 3 LID FEE $ TESC' App, ovea PUBLIC RIGIII OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP Rw Permit Required street use Pnernit Roq'd EXISTING PROPOSED inspection Required Sidewalk Required REQUIRED DEDICATION Fr underground Witing faqujmd METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV DEQUIRED 3/4 It I / I I I ? C YES )( NO IJ REMARKS OWNERICONIRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE e6d 1) ) Nc� F6 C 7- 110 N .1)) EQr�!:& / 0 ^4 -A a)s; , Lt D P lot n-4 ot'l te; 1-4 7— (-1 1`-A4 0 7 cc Lu z z 6 z UJI uvnLnt� i GINEERING REVIE41) By DATE Cc ADDRESS j7r _5Z 1 0 � C1 )"KIP LLI FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE Cr CITY TELEPHONE 0 jN K-,e �3 2,211 BOND r��q - . VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR AD111 INSPECTION STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE gBy I REOO POSTED .4 f I YES JXNO S 191 D';5 'C!�+ - I - I-),::> , SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGH PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOSED 016 U1 r-)-7 021 -1 elel. 1 1 o6 LOT COVERAGE REQUIRE PROPOSED SETBACKS (FT) At FRGWT kSETBAg..KS (Fr.) NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING MECH ALLOWED PROPOSED smE RrnAR" A1PR69TL-L1t-&IDE,9Wn",R i� /a Z COMPLIANCE OR 15' 15 1 15 13 )o 2 ADDITION COMMERCIAL El CHANGE OF USE - x V ... I. . z PARKING LOT AR�A PZNING REVIEWVD 9Y DATE REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REQ'D I PROVIDED I - 1� GRADINQ FENCE 605 7 REPAIR -.Jp CYDS ( X Fr) REMARKS DEMOLISH TANK F-1 OTHER GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER z CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: PE OCCUPAN CHECKEQ, BY TYPE OF ONSTRUCTION 1( GROUP uj NUMBER TNUMBER OF CRITICAL 0 LLI AREAS SPECIAL INSPECTION JAREA OCCUPANT M OF DWELLING LOAD UNITS R co STORIES UNITS REQUIRED YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS z PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ1D S E MAR) ROG K�ev\] (,�DLMU �7_XM j4z4i] (at VALUATION -1 L .1 &Ya�54 > F1 ILK= - �0 (a. 5)1� $ IP(,e Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check .)qq State Surcharge `7 56 - 2,�_l - 5 62AY SOURCE GLAZING % - . �OT SLOPE % Building Permit -;Z/j 69 City Surcharge H�� Ity- r-,--kA PLAN CHECK NO: VESTED DATE Plumbing -3 Base Fee �sl /-) 14i I r I / Mechanical 70 THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK TO t: BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC Grading DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE 0 SEPARATE PERMISSION. Engr. Review Q ZA)" or PERMIT APPLICATION: 160DAYS PERMIT LIMIT. 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 U) U) IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS. EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND Fire Inspection Receipt P cc ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OFWHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLYORINDIRECII-Y FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT. ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQLJIREMENF OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITY's ABILITY VO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.* Recording Fee Receipt # I I 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 TILE OWNER. I AGREE TO COM13LY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSIRUC- CALL Fhis application is not a permit until signed by Ilia TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED Building 011icial or hisiliet Deputy: and Fees are paid, and IN VIO_��QN OF THE LABOR CQCP-,OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. WOVWN'VM.PENSATION INSIL(RANPE AND RCW IB.27. ijqis�GNATI_71 DA1E OFF J DATE SIGNED (425) 771-0220 A IZI -6rIiiEASFD BY AT AYIT E OffO N EXT 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGI�AL - FILE' YELLOW - INSPECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - OWN'[Fl GOLD -ASSESSOR 09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES I/ z 0 4 0 ITI —1 -n 0 M C M 0 0 10 0 C: M M Z M in o -n n MITI 0 0 0 M C cor) 9 m M 0 Z z --I z 0 1 0 ITI i RIO 'N MWv IT KgI.W A Wl� 44 .-4"4 i� NT... All 4 IV tom-R, m"k. WaMy MR g. " T-tni -.r 1-TT ail lilfabMIlu mg 14 K I mll V !�(716 &M. 6A, S 16 Duct A '247. 00 ALL EXPOSED SURFACES TO ftT bNT, 5 r-j m g ltir. at cb,-tbt f(me ?*7. 15 BE c(�VERED WITHIN 2 DAYS SCALE: 1" = 20.00' PROVED BY PLANNING CITY COWY FROIS'10N NECEIVED JUN 2 5 2004 PERMIT COUNTER Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer lec lec September 29, 2004 City of Edmonds 1h DIVISION Z 121 5 Ave. N. 0 Edmonds, WA 98020 A 1- .1 0 M Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical lrispaelc. ions Michel Construction Project 48" and Pine-) ------------- CD 8 New Single Family Residences 0 M C This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for M 0 0 0 the 8 new residences at 8�h and Pine (by Michel Construction Inc.). C M M Z REFERENCES: 10 --1 1 1 1 C —Z 0 Geotechnical report by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004 X 0 City of Edmonds approved project plans for 8 new residences 0 -n 0 Inspection authorization by City of Edmonds -n Construction photographs MM a 0 BACKGROUND: OM (n co Michel Construction has received permits for the construction of 8 new MO Z r- residences at the northeast intersection of 8 th Ave. and Pine St. IT ;U This engineer prepared a geotechnical report dated July 2, 2004 with criteria for foundation work, excavation, and rockeries. Z Excavation for the project began in August of 2004 (see photographs). Z 0 This engineer provided ggily onsite inspections during periods of active excavation and foundation work. M 0 915 8 th Ave. S. (2oQ4-07141: 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. SOILS - FOUNDA TIONS - SITF DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINA6E DESIGN& PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, WA 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds September 29, 2004 Page 2 of 3 921 8" Ave. S. (2QQA-0713 Soil A: All excavation stable and approved o p.s.f. verified. "OK' to proceed with foundation formwork, bearing of 2,00 reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. &h 8A:All excavation stable and approved. Soil 925 Ave. S 2004-069 z I to proceed with foundation formwork, 0 bearing of 2,000 p-s-t- verMed. --OK ity of Edmonds approved -1 reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per C 0 plans. =i 9 933 &h Ave. SL 2004-07 vation stable and approved. Soil L_____ I OA: Al I exca U5 --j rified.-()IC to proceed with foundation formwork, 2: bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. ve 0 M ncrete placement per City of Edmonds approved C 0 reinforcing steel, and co M 0 --1 0 plans. 0 C M M 9145 8 th Ave. S. (2oQ4-07121: All excavation stable and approved. Soil M Z rified. ,OW to proceed with foundation formwork, 10 --1 bearing of 2,000 p-s-f- ve C 2 nerete placement per City of Edmonds approved > reinforcing steel, and co plans. M 0 n n 953 81h Ave S. (2004-071 IA: All excavation stable and approved. Soil erified. -01C to proceed with foundation formwork, bearing of 2,000 p.s.f. v r City of Edmonds approved M M reinforcing steel, and concrete placement pe 0 V5 0 r- 0 M plans. C Cn C Cn M 0 959 8 Ih Ave. S. (2QQ4-�0709 : All excavation stable and approved. Soil Z bearing of 2,000 p-s-f. verified. ,OW to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. > z -i All excavation stable and approved. Soil M ,,OIC to proceed with foundation formwork, Cn bearing of 2,000 p-s-t- verified. City of Edmonds approved z reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per 0 i 0 plans. M SUMMARY: Geotechnical inspections verifled proper work through this date September 29, 2004. The excavations for all 8 lots are stable and pppLoyed. City of Edmonds September 29, 2004 Page 3 of 3 fied and approved for Foundation bearing for all 8 residences was veri foundation placement. y City of Edmonds. otechnical inspections ongoing as required b Ge z 0 s, do not hesitate to call. If there are any question A Sit, M M 0 0 IT! 4 L," rri z _ 17405 .C1 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. C z ONA16 > Geotechnical Civil Engineer r ExMES 0 -n C.C. Michel Construction Inc. MM 7907 212" St. SW #102 0 Edmonds, WA 98026 0 IT! CD CD M 0 Z DMB:jpb z z 0 IT! Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer FIECEIVED December 30, 2004 JAN 0 � 2005 City of Edmonds ENGMEERNG D11110olofl 1h 121 5 Ave. N. Z Edmonds, WA 98020 0 Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical bc ections aw—1 0 M Michel Construction Projec t(8"� and PYine 8 New Residences --I C M This engineering report presents the results of ongoing geotechnical th M 0 0 inspections for the 8 new homes construct ed by Michel Construction at 8 and —4 0 0 Pine. C M M Z REFERENCES: C— >Z 9 City of Edmonds approved project plans 0 Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004 0 -n n 0 Previous inspection reports 0 Photographs mm 0 U5 0 INSPECTIONS: Orr! C Cn C Cn This engineer has provided and continues to provide onsite geotechnical M0 Z inspections as required by City of Edmonds authorization. Pine St. (2004-0697): This enginee r verified proper placement of > compacted structural fill (crushed rock) to improve constructability on sub- Z grade soils. This engineer previously verified dense native sub -grade soils providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. The structural fill was effectively Z placed as a construction expedient and is geotechnically approved. 0 Subsurface drainage was properly placed in accordance with approved 0 plans and normal practices. M The rear soil cut required erosion stabilization and this enaineer 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 WNS - S17-E DEVELOPMENr - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds December 30, 2004 Page 2 of 3 953 8th Ave. S. Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading gp9p r ugh this date (December 30, 2004). Loyedd thro 945 8 Ih Ave. This engineer v_eCffied 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 8�h Ave. S. (20gA-0710 1: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading pp9Lo_yed through this date (December 30, 2004). erif 925 IP Ave. S. (20o4_06981: This engineer �L_ied 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. .0MA: 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 geot3chnically appLoyed. This engineer verified proper placement of subsurface drainage in accordance with approved plans and good practices. Z 0 A 0 M --I -n Cl) M C M 0 -10 0 C M M Z jo -4 C 0 _n n M M 0 0 0 M C Cn 9 Cn M 0 Z Z 0 Z 0 1 0 M City of Edmonds December 30, 2004 Page 3 of 3 915 8 1h Ave. S. (2004-07141: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approved through this date (December 30, 2004). z SUMMARY: 0 0 Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified proper foundation, drainage, M, and rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004). 0 No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurred to this site or neighboring C properties as a result of the construction activities. M 0 0 through this date (December 30, 0 C All geotechnical aspects are approve --49 M M 2004). M z z Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds. > 0 -n If there are any questions, do, not hesitate to call. M M M. 0 —C/) V WAS 0 F- 0 M C 0) 9 0) ()0 M 0, Z ;U 17405 ONAL > Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. z Geotechnical / Civil Engineer EXPWMS 12f23/ ob ILJ co z .G. Michel onstruction Inc. 7907 212 1h St. SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 DMB:jpb -1 W, Height Calculation Worksheet Address: Date: &-iL I ector(s): PA so 1. Datum Point: rLl?\ CIL 2. Datum Point Elevation: -,I q 3 Average Grade: . A. Maximum Elevation Allowed: 2jL-LAc(aver�igb &ade)-'+ 25"'*-. �Lq )L 0 q 5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: 2 (datum elevation) + J(A,IS (grade to transit level line'shot to house) 9. LI 6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge: Ct 0 k 0 7. Actual Elevation: a W - 13 (reference point elevation) + a t (measurements from #6) = )L acil; S 'A Conclusion: CILt (actual) is greater W than 9-ci .04 (allowed); therefore the house W is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements z 0 1 0 M X. M C rT, 0 0 --io 0 C M M z 07-1 C z Cl) 0 -n -n 3: M M 0 0 M C 0) M 0 Z I X z 3: C0 z 0, 0 M � I In C. is) 11 CITY OF EDMONDS 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH - EDMONDS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 1 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: wwwdedmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT Planning - Building - Engineering June 9, 2005 Michel Construction 7907 212"' St SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 GARY HAAKENSON MAYOR Re: Building Permit: 2004-0698 Site Address: 925 8"' Ave S Expiration Date: 8/20/05 Dear Michel Construction, The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection oil your project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) deteirnines that there are no outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close YOLir perillit file. The City considers the final inspection to be one of the rilost important inspections conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval the following must be complete: smoke detectors, house numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, 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 permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage You to check your pen -nit 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 ifyou have any questions. Sincerely, JoAnne ZuIaLlf Permit Specialist 1,V1*emp\DS'1"s\N,1aster Letters\SR%%,aanflArSF1t Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister City - Helkinan, Japan Z 0 0 M Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 2OG-546-8442 P.1 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M. S. C. M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer March 25, 2006 City of Edmonds 121 5th Ave. N Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: FINAL Report - Geotechnical Inspections Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Now Homes Sth and Pine, Edmonds, Washington 915 ath Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0714 945 8"' Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0712 921 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0713 9538 ih Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0711 925 Sth Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0698 959 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0709 933 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-07`10 821 Pine St I Permit No. 2004-0213 (final report submitted June '14, 2005) This engineering report presents the final resuft of ongoing geotechnical inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 8th and Pine in Edmonds, Washington. NOTE: Final report dated June 14, 2005 completed inspections at 821 Pine St. REFERENCES: • City of Edmonds approved Project Plans • Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. • Site photographs INSPECTIONS: This engineer provided on -site geotechnical inspections as required by City of Edmonds in accordance with special inspection agreements. Geotechnical inspections occurred gggy during key aspects of excavation, foundation preparation, fill placement, subsurface drainage, rockery construction and grading activities. The following summaries refer to all 7 homes listed above (821 Pine St. already completed). Excavations: The excavation for all 8 homes encountered dense native sub - grade soils as anticipated by the geotechnical investigation and report. SOILS - FOUNDATIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE * DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 FAVaeffis h- L-0 MAR 2 8 ?Pn9 DHEICO `,"i "V3. z 0 0 m Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 p.2 City of Edmonds Re: Michel Construction, Inc., March 25, 2006 Page 2 All excavations were stable and are approved. Soil BeadM: This engineer v_erified dense native sub -grade soils easily t foundation formwork providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. Subsequen reinforcing steel and concrete placement occurred in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and good practices. Approved. ed for Fill Material: No significant quantities of fill material were requir geotechnical purposes. Contractor brought in localized amounts (less than 10 cubic yards per lot) and placed as a sub -base in order to optimize foundation formwork procedures. All placement of fill material is in accordance with this -- engineer's geotechnical inspections. Approved. Rockery Construction: This project required a number of rockeries both between lots and at the up -slope east portion of the project (see Project Plans and photographs). This engineer verified the following: Base rock embeddment in dense sub -grade soil, rock linkage, rock size, rock chinking, drainage zone, face batter, and final "blending in" with existing grades. All project rockeries; comply with approved Project Plans, this engineees on -site recommendations and normal good practices. All rockeries are approved as constructed. Subsurface Drainage: This engineer inspected and verified placement of subsurface drains in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and good practices. All subsurface drainage is geotechnically approved. Erosion Control: Contractor properly established temporary erosion control measures consisting of: Rocked construction entrance, siltation fencing, straw bales as required, inlet catch basin filter socks, and diligent. cleanup. All temporary erosion control measures were properly maintained throughout the project. Permanent Erosion Control Measures: Permanent erosion control measures have been properly established for the entire 8-horne project: Final surficial grading has been completed, all driveways have been paved, rocke6es completed, landscaping consisting of lawn, shrubbery and small trees have been properly installed. Additionally, the native growth zone at the southwest portion of the overall property appears to comply with City of Edmonds approved Plans. Z 0 4 0 M 206-546-8442 P.3 Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. City of Edmonds n, Inc. Re: Michel Constructio March 25, 2006 Page 3 installed. There are no have been All permanent erosion control measures exposed earth surfaces on the project. Approved. geotechnical instabilities or Z", SUMMARY: 0 technical inspection items have been properly completed, All special geo M ontrol measures. including permanent erosion c =i 9n, This report completes the geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E. M C to call. If there are any questions, do not hesitate rn 0 0; 0. 0 C M' M Z' w O.-n* 17405 Cc) *frca; ONA16 M M Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical Civil Engineer 0 M C C/) C CI), M DMB:abj z 0 cc: Michel Construction, Inc. z C1) z 0 M 0'- Dennis M. Bruce, RE M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer July 2, 2004 z 0, Mr. Rob Michel .JUL M Michel Construction, Inc. =n- 7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102 0"Alir6 r U5 Edmonds, Washington 98026 M C M Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Rep 0 rt" 0 0 C Propos ed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development M 8 th Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington M z C > z F— -4 This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation 0 -n of the property at the N.E. corner of 8h Ave. S. and Pine Street, Edmonds, n Washington, with respect to the proposed 8 lot development. This evaluation M M was required due to owner developer concerns, as well as City of Edmonds C0 requirements. 0 0 M 0) Cn M 0: z REFERENCES: X Survey by L.S.A. > Location map Z, Site plan Project drainage p Ian by Donna Breske, PE CITY COF017 z 0 Photographs --I I . 0 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 1h Ave S. SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN & PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442 ff - Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" Ave. S, & Pine Street Pagetwo CHARACTERISTI 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 8" 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 _EVALUATION: of 81h Ave. S and Visual assessments of the property at the N.E. corner 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 8" 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 9 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" 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 1h sites in the area, the property at 8 Ave. S and Pine Street is geotechnically approved for the proposed Michel Construction 8 lot S.F.R. development, subject to the following: 0 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. 0 For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. 0 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 Michel Construction, inc. / 8" 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 two feet below the the footing width. For example, an overexcavation extending 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 Desicin Value Coefficient of Friction 0.55 Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f. Where: p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot. (2) Passive earth pressure is computed using the equivalent fluid density. z 0 M M C M 0 -40 0 0 C im M M Z C > z 0 M M 0 0 M C C/) 90) M 0 Z M z z 0 M 0'. Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h 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. PERIVIANENTFOUNDATION 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: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures are computed using equivalent fluid densities. For restrained walls which cannot deflect at least 0.002 times the wall height, a uniform lateral pressure of one hundred (100 p.s.f. should be added to the active equivalent fluid pressure). z 9 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 q 0 M I 0 Michel Construction, Inc. / 8" Ave. S & Pine Street Page seven 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 geotechnicall 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. 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 i 0 M -4 -n M M 0 -10 0 C M M Z o -n n M M 0 0 C cl) C Cl) Q 0 Z Z X 55 Z 0 1 3 M 9 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 6ornpaction 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 9 0 M --I -n 0 M C M 0 0 0 0 C M M Z C _Z Cl) 0 71 -n M M -C/) 01- 0 M C C/) K C/) Q 0 Z X Z Z 0 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. 8" 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 "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 acceptabl if the upper organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS - The overall property at 81h & Pine contains upslope seepage. The road (81h 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 minim 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: Z 0 4 0 M 1h Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Ave. S & Pine Street Page ten Soil cuts Foundation subgrade verification Retaining wall, or rockery placement Any fill placement Subsurface drainage installation Tempora[y and final erosion control measures. 'SUMMARY: The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8 1h & 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. r uennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer z 0 A 0 M FINALTItO ECTAPPROVALTORM TO: DATE: MEMO TO: ".-VERMIYCOORDINATOlk: BUtLDING DIVISION �,ROM:-F I RE_- D EP Al n'MUNT DA17 E p PIXWF SIGN 7 NGINEERING DIVISION D KFE'�'_ c z -ksE sic .7 Lr PLAN.N'INGD]VfS[O N DATE m t OIX-AsusIdN I q:n T � cn A M c: M �SITE AbDvxS8 iZM ADB# INSPECTED' 3: M ;j)ATE M Z OF.WORKTO BEJNSPECTEb C > z .1",I)ESCRIPTION v d I tai :�vl�s, 0 U ��,Approy ermi d insp nd F A�:�[Ipl ection n�� pomplance Nvltll appro e. U) 0 -n D epartment t a no.'ob- o,,,.ic:,:..:re e., ar -denotes, th Ctkcr' jccfions.,,.(r,4in..:.th6 aboic. signed c th 1-fiw., kof -n;u _j > d PERFORMANCE'tONDS and the.iman um of: 3: m M 0 cn m AN Y. F I N A; L P CYAPPROVAL cn cn -ROJE4 MC Z m z AP D .,PROJECY .14 CONDITIONS NOTE G tOWP VROVIAL.Wrr �:C f, C0NDlTl0NS,:gjV6q-t d6ritia&or. or o�owncr w cn z 0 m NDING ISSU IA FINAL PECTION OUTSTA LS ED q ON TICE doe NO' ��yn` f/c6ntra6l6r by'i ctor '3. OU INGISSUES - GRANT FINAL PROi,E,C'FAPPROVAI'J_,� -Date 0 �OT Oat RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED yo SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing t 7 ...................... ____v_v Wall .......................... Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... z 0 , f ! PLUMBING: 0 yvl_,�, Underground ............. =n Rough -In ................... --j r 0 Commercial Final ...... M C 0 M HEATING: 0 0 Gas Test .................... -j 3: rn M Z Gas Piping ................. I[) --I Equipment ................. (4 - C= z > 3: Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING I el - 0 s 0 -n -n NAILING .......................... —PIT— rn M FRAMING ........................ Cn 0 r- FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... 0 M C: Cn INSULATION ................... rn 0 Z Floor Insulation ......... 71 ;U Wall Insulation ........... 3: Ceiling Insulation ....... > z SHEETROCK NAILING ... _q Cn SPECIAL INSPECTION ... z 0 --I 0 M MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. 200 The Initials Ware Milton Thompson, a temporary contract inspector rol. the City. 0 side sewer# Auioutpald$ vltecelpt #, Date A I o� rg 14x"xpires I U Lan 5) Z4 Wat(!7 Mder t pa!(l 42��_ Recelpt It Amoun _LLL Date Purmch = ed Row # ArncuntPaid$,_ P,4 _., %.__- �r .,..e Tren., 1,