The URL can be used to link to this page

20040711.pdf9 DATE RECEIVED 4,1,,7 U /2 A- ERMIT EXPIRES ,,�jt 1 FP USE PERMIT CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE NUMBER Z-�',Vt JOB SUITE/APT# CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION ADDRESS OWNER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISION NO. LOT NO. LID NO. 3 M MAILING ADDRESS 0 — LID FEE $ Lu z TIESCP Approved 3: PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP RW Permit Raquilod 0 7, Stiairi use Permit Hori'd C3 CITY ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING PROPOSED Inspoction Required a I Sidewalk Renutred 0 REQUIRED DEDICATION FT underground Wiring faquired E3 NAME METER SIZE LINE SIZ� NO. OF FIXTURET_ PRV REQUIRED 3 YES I / YESA NO U3 W L- ADDRESS REMARKS z z OWNER/CON TRACTOR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONIROL/DRAINAGE a z uj CITY ZIP TELEPHONE ieiri�222 1Ni=_,exr ri o N cs.� : ((Dec_ (2c),si n& (42VVA K _Lt�_ NjMLy-r1%---) el ___7_7 (0 72A I , , (Cri C-3 N6 0 Kt A4 NAME CBL# I , I (rO aL) 51 JIL �m . G NEERING REVIEWE� BY DATE M ADDRESS t- o I FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE W CITY ZIP TELEPHONE cc 0 LL VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND STATE LICENSE NUMBER EXPIRATION DATE CHECKED -BY REC&O POSTED i S It I OYES 4�61. z SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA HEIGHT i Ld -<Jl PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO. COMPLETE EXEMPT A L LLO WW LED PROPOSED ALLOWED , PROPO 1) J,2 f�, I . :1 '_`T� 31 -��5 ;S �7 -2 __D ul _fLl - p L &,.1610 —q�NEW *f-_PESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (Fr.) PROPOSED SETBACKS (Fr.) ALLOWED PROPOSED FRON_� SIDE REAR FROYT YPSID�, REAR/. ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR X0 z CHANGE OF USE 3 5 Yo 'X) ?Z: I LOT AREA G IEW 5 FENCE ED (006 Tzz 0. 0 GJA 9 PARKING NIN RE DATE REMODEL 11 MULTIFAMILY SIGN RECTO I PROVID REPAIR _DIN CYDS X Fr) REMARKS DEMOLISH 11 TANK OTHER GARAGE - RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER CARPORT 1-1 ROCKERY FIRE ALARM r (TYPE OF USE, BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN: L CHECKED BY TYPE OF CONSTRUCTION CODE OCCUPANT GROUP 7 w NUMBER OF CRITIC At 51 U f T(" I L.�e' NUMBER C' OF DWELLING AREAS SPECIAL INS,,P�CTION AREA OCCUPANT 0 STORIES NUMBE REQUIRED LOAD M UNITS R ITN I t — YES DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE 1A) 3 ffREMARKS SS INSPECTIONS PER UBC I 08/FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D __D I V(17 a -al _09-2-6VOW]i FICE I GLAZING % LOT SLOPE % PLAN CHECK NO: , , ii --) � , I � I VESTED THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WOAK TO BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE SEPARATE PERMISSION. W PERMIT APPLICATION: 180 DAYS PERMIT LIMIT: I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION 'APPLICANT. ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS. ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS U) W IN INTEREST, AGREES TO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF _j M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENTS FROM ANY AND ir ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OF WHATEVER NATURE, ARISING DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF I HIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE DEEMED TO MOD117X WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE 0 NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE CITYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION.' I HEREBY ACKNOWLEDGE THAT I HAVE READ THIS APPLICATION� THAT THE INFORMATION GIVEN IS CORRECT; AND THAT I AM THE OWNER, OR THE DULY AUTHORIZED AGENT OF THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- TION; AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY. NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED IN VIOLATION OF THE LAAGR.CODE OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON RELATING TO WORKMEN'S COMPENSAYPNIN&PRANCE�AN"CW 18.27. ,qICJW'URE IbwN`ER OMAG/912/ /n \ I DATE SIGNED VALUATION $ 21.071�z Description FEE Description FEE Plan Check f 1z, State Surcharge L Building Permit ,;2tl Q, City Surcharge Plumbing Z71P Base Fee Mechanical Grading e� 1'0 Engr. Review Engr. Inspection Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit Fire Inspection Receipt # Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due 15 31 f 37 c Hecording Fee Receipt H W, 31 APPLICATION APPROVAL This application is not a perinit until signed by the CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided. OFFICI LS SIG T HE D TE (425) r '5� El �* �/z 771-0220 RELEASED BY LDA�1/ ATTENTWN EA 1 1333 IT IS UNLAWFUL TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL 16� k,4 A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- ORIGINAILt/ Fl� YELLOW INSPECTOR CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - OWRER GOLD - ASSESSOR A 09/03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES /tj 0 1 0 M --i -n M M 0 0 --I (-) 0 C M M Z 10 --1 C o -n n M ITI 0 _C0 0 r_ 0 M C 0 9(n M 0 z z z 0 1 0 M 2 13. 257.58'(2�li7,27-l-'-'!7,7.,,,'c)'/ 2) C. 257.46' iroo.50, Q 252,81' 25512' —10'UTILIV ssm1i L tv AX I,IEIGFi-r.. 280.12' 1 1 -A --'r U A L I-i E, I G 279.95' YE) #2\ #2 ,,EWER GOLNECT101 EA6EMENT cd V )91'ING= 25'1 .95' ;T F L. = 2,96.45' an ri 260.45' wl r� c4l i I I v ij . =.4 LI) LD 7. no MAX )GKERY mutua— r !..:t :' ZAP. X1,65 CITY I or--r- A-rl okin r-1 96;� 4-R. RIDGE, = 279.95' 5CAI-E: 1" = 2C)'-U" . . I j - - , imill' - 1,11VIOUS AREA BUILDING: 2,)65.50 SO. I-J. I P�ZIV E :WAY: 509.50 SO. I—F, -pi p 240.75 T T -28*14.75SQ.1,1. NEW hQT COVERAG F : WNI.Ef, 1 �704.56 i N60, 2 TA: 270-3250-0217- "11', R F E, N C E 0 MICHEL NSTRUCTION, INC -53 8TI 4 ANTE IMONDS, X ae. "A. 98020 It—, 17,79' ......... WATER METER LOGATEP Nf THE NW CORNER Of-: LOT I ........... pAp,,,,[3,, ON bTi-I A\/I-* C) 0 VF-rTICAL DATUM: (,XrCH DANN R .E5" W 260 I-OCATI-E-1) JgrEr,1,3E(-,"Fl0N 01: -T A AV &-m A\/r- & FINE!). 1-:LEV: 241,00 Ri�,vl I IS, CEIVED evv I I -' R (X GAIJ- 4.25.771.0220 EXT 1326 sALL EXI'05EP 5URFACE5 TO DE DEC 2 2 200h COVEEKEI) WITHIN 2 PAY5 sOWNE-FUGONTRAGTOR 15 RE11,511ON51DI-E For, 1--P,0510N CONTROL ANP DRAINAGE PERMIT COUNTER -FOOTING PRAIN5 NOT TO 131--- TIEP INTO PETIENTION 5Y5TEN4 4 N Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. m.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer July 2, 2004 RECEIvEr) JUL - 6 20N z 0 PERMIT COUNTER 0 M Mr. Rob Michel Michel Construction, Inc. =n 7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102 co Edmonds, Washington 98026 M C M Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report" 0 00 C Proposed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development X M 81h Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington M z 107-1 z CD This engineering report presents the results of a geotechnical evaluation 0 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 0- Cn requirements. 0 0 M C C() 9 co M 0 z REFERENCES: Survey by L.S.A. Location map z Site plan Project drainage plan by Donna Breske, PE CITY COPY Cn Z, Photographs 0 0 M 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 81h Ave S. SOILS FOUNDATIONS SITE DEVELOPMENT INSPECTION DRAINAGE DESIGN PERMIT LEGAL P.O. Box 55502 Shoreline, Washington 98155 (206) 546-9217 FAX 546-8442 Michel Construction, Inc. 8" 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 8 1h 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: Visual assessments of the property at the N.E. corner of 8 1h 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 8 1h 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 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 Z concurs with the system of drains and detention for geotechnical integrity. 0 The very dense subgrade soils will provide excellent foundation bearing 0 M with proper drainage controls. 0 M CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS: M 0 0 0 C M Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar M Z sites in the area, the property at 8 1h Ave. S and Pine Street is geotechnically C: —Z approved for the proposed Michel Construction 8 lot S.F.R. development, 0) subject to the following: o -n Standard reinforcing continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing pressure: 2,000 p.s.f. M M Cn 0 0 M Equivalent fluid pressure of 35 p.c.f. is recommended for any retaining C CD 9 (D wall design provided drainage zone i's inspected and verified by this Q 0 Z engineer. ;U For retaining wall design, use friction factor of 0.55 and passive pressure of 350 p.c.f. Z Geotechnical inspection by this engineer prior to any foundation concrete CD placement. Z F5 M 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 entitle d General Earthwork and Structural Fill for structural fill placement and compaction recommendations. Continuous and individual spread footing s should have minimum widths of 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 N'. 1h 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: (1) p.c.f. is pounds per cubic foot (2) Active and passive earth pressures I 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 i 0 M -n M C M 01 0 0 C --I C M M M Zr I[) -i C 0 -Ti n MM 055 0 r- 0 M C cl) 9 CO) Q 0 Z z C/) z 0 1 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. / 8 1h 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 i 0 M =i =fi C/) M MO 0 0 C M Mz J[) -i C _Z 0) o -n n M M 0 0 0 M C U) J� F. Cl) Q 0 Z .A ;0 > z C/) z 0 q 0 M Michel Construction, Inc. 8 1h 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 geotechnical engineer, excavation cuts may be modified for site conditions. All permanent cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes should not exceed 1:1 (H:V). it is important to note that sands do cave suddenly, and without warning. The contractors should be made aware, of this potential hazard. Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve stability of the surficial layer of soil. DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS: Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining walls. These drains should be surrounded by at least six (6) inches of one -inch - minus washed rock wrapped in non -woven geotextile filter fabric (Mirafi 140N, Supac 4NP, or similar material). At the highest point, the perforated pipe invert should be at least as low as the bottom of the footing and it should be sloped for drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the foundation drain system. 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 M --I -n M C M 0 0 C: M M Z g) -4 C _Z 3: Cl) 0 _n n M M 0 0 0 M C (J) C Cn M 0 Z M __4 X Z CD Z 0 1 0 M 1h Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Ave. S & Pine Street Page eight GENERA 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 Z 0 material. The stripped or removed materials should not be mixed with any 0 materials to be used as structural fill. R1 Structural fill is defined as any fill placed under the building, behind Cn permanent retaining or foundation walls, or in other areas where the underlying M C soils needs to support loads. This engineer should observe site conditions M 0 0 __10 during and after excavation prior to placement of any structural fill. 0C M All structural fill should be placed in horizontal lifts with a moisture content M Z at or near the optimum moisture content. The optimum moisture content is that C -2 > moisture content which results in the greatest compacted dry density. The moisture content of fill soils is very important and must be closely controlled o -n during the filling and compaction process. -n The allowable thickness of the fill lift will depend on the material type, M M compaction equipment, and the number of passes made to compact the lift. In 0 0 M no case should the lifts exceed twelve (12) inches in loose thickness. The C Cn K Cn following table presents recommended relative compaction for structural fill: M 0 Z Lo ation of Fill Placement Minimum RelativeCompaction X Beneath footings, slabs or walkways 95% X Z Behind retaining walls 90% 65 Z 0 Beneath pavements 95% for upper 12 0 inches of subgrade, 90% below that level M 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 0 Michel Construction, Inc. 81h 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 acceptable if the upper organic materials is segregated and moisture contents are monitored by engineering inspection. DRAINAGE CONTROLS - The overall property at 8 1h & 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, f etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard o 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 Michel Construction, Inc. 8" Ave. S & Pine Street Page ten Soil cuts Foundation subgrade verification z 0 Retaining wall, or rockery placement Any fill placement 0 M Subsurface drainage installation Temporary and final erosion control measures. 0 M C M 0 SUMMARY: 0 Oc 1h & The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8 Pine XM Mz Edmonds, is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the C E recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and > r requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction. 0 CLOSURE: X MM 0- 0 CD, The findings and recommendations of this report were prepared in Om accordance with generally accepted professional engineering principles and C Cn 9 CD Q 0, practice. No other warranty, either express or implied, is made. The conclusions Z are based on the results of the field exploration and interpolation of subsurface ;U 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 z modify the recommendations. z 0 If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. M Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. Geotechnical Civil Engineer 17 a Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. WS-.0 �E, M. TBA. fAvcoxmo September 29, 2004 City of Edmonds 121 5�' Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Field Reports / Geotechnical I ctions Michel Construction Project 8'h and Pine 7;P;9 8 New Single Family Residences This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for the 8 new residences at & 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 • Construction photographs BACKGROUND: Michel Construction has received permits for the construction of 8 new residences at the northeast intersection of 8�h 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 qgjLy onsite inspections during periods of active excavation and foundation work. th Ave. S.12004 0714 : All excavation stable and approved. Soil 0 915 8 proceed with foundation formwork, bearing of 2,00o p.s.f. verified. "OK' to r City of Edmonds approved reinforcing steel, and concrete placement pe plans. - AGE , DESIGN& PERAW r - L EGA L SOILS - FOUNDA TIONS . SHEDEVELOPA4EN7 , INSpEC710N . D,9AIN p.0. Box 55502 * Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 City of Edmonds September 29, 2004 Page 2 of 3 921 Bth Ave. S. (ZO04-071;11 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. 925 8th Ave. S. (20o�-06�81: All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 2,000 P-s.T. venTled. OK to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 933 8�h Ave. S. (2 )1�-07 �10 - 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. 245 8'h Ave. S. (2004-0712): All excavation stable and approved. Soil lz�- d with foundation formwork, bearing of 2,000 P-S-f- verified. "OK to procee reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 953 Bth Ave. S. ( )o4_071.1A: All excavation stable and approved. Soil bearing of 21000 P.S.f. verified. "OK to proceed with foundation formwork, reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 1959 8 th Ave. S. (2ggL-0709 -avation stable and approved. Soil 1: All exr -f- verified. ,OK to proceed with foundation formwork, bearing of 2 , 000 P-s reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved plans. 821 Pine St. L�2004-0�6971': 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. SUMMARY: Geotechnical inspections _vtn gied proper work through this date September 29, 2004. 0 The excavations for all 8 lots are stable and ppip-LO—Yed. z 9 0 M --i -n 0 M C M 0 --10 0 C: --4 C X M M z 0 -n n MM 0 0 0 M C (n r, CI) M 0 Z z --I M U5 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. .01 WANJ Ok 17405 Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. NAL Geotechnical Civil Engineer tEXPIRES C.C. Michel Construction Inc. 7907 212 1h St. SW #102 Edmonds, WA 98026 DMB:jpb z 0 0 M --i -n rn IT! 0 -10 0 rn M z 0 71 n M M 0 C-1) 0 r- 0 M C/) cn, M 0 Z z z 0 1 0 IT! Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. M. S. C. E., M. B. A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer RECEIVED December 30, 2004 JAN 0 4 20-95 City of Edmonds ENGMEEPRIG DlVJC'1l()PJ 121 5 1h Ave. N. Edmonds, WA 98020 Subject: Field Reports / Geotechnical kwections, Michel Construction Project(8F�and P5ine 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 * Photographs INSPECTIONS: This engineer has provided and continues to provide onsite geotechnical inspections as required by City of Edmonds authorization. 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" 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 RONS - SIrE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECTION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN S PERMIT - L EGAL P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 Z 0 A 0 M -1 -n M C M 0 0 0 C: M M Z o -n n M M a _Cn 0 r- 0 M C cn C Cn Q 0 Z ;U Z Cn Z 0 i 0 M �. M City of Edmonds December 30, 2004 Page 2 of 3 953 8�' Ave. : Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approved through this date (December 30, 2004). erif' placement of 945 8" Ave. S. 2004-07121: This engineer K iled proper compacted structural fill (crusned 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. abilization and this engineer verified The rear soil cut required erosion st 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. 9:33 8 Ih Ave. S. (2qq4:Q7ZjIOQ): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approved through this date (December 30, 2004). 925 8" Ave : 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. tabilization and this engineer verified The rear soil cut required erosion s 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 8 Ih Ave. S. L2004-07131: 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 geot 3chnically approved. This engineer v_erffied proper placement of subsurface drainage in accordance with approved plans and good practices. Z 0 q 0 M q =5 M C M 0 0 -10 0 C: M M Z _Z -1 M 0 M M C) 0 0 rTj C (1) C M M 0 Z M Z Z 0 1 0 M 0 City of Edmonds December 30, 2004 Page 3 of 3 915 8" Ave. S. (2)04-0714): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading approved through this date (December 30, 2004). z 0 SUMMARY: 0 M Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified proper foundation, drainage, and rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004). 0 M No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurred to this site or neighboring C: M r rf; I tj ove es cas a i luou t ol the. construction activities. 0 0 C M All geotechnical aspects are approved through this date (December 30, M z 2004). i C —Z Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds. W o -n n If there are any questions, do, not hesitate to call. M M 0 —Cn M 0 0 M C Cn K V) M 0 00 Z sot 1 05 > z ONAL Dennis M. Bruce, P.E. 1ExPW IV= Geotechnical Civil Engineer Cn z 0 C.C. Michel Construction Inc. 7907 212 th St. SW #102 M Edmonds, WA 98026 DMB:jpb Height Calculation Worksheet Address: q5-6 Date: Inspector(s): �1- 16 7C� 1. Datum Point:c_ 2. Datum Point Elevation: z: 3. Average Grade: X IS !S M .4. Maximum Elevation Allowed: JB"(averagi�., &ade):+25` — L' ), Ui 5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House: C M M 0. oe (datum elevation) + jjjgj( (grade to transit level Une *shot to house) 8. 0 C MM 6. Measurements from line shot onto house to roof ridge:' M z CO -7 0 71 -n M M 0- 0 W r 0 M C a) 9 W M 0 Z X z -4 Total: I't , k2-5 W z 0 .7. Actual Elevation: Xrj T9- (reference point elevation) (measurements 0 M from #6) Conclusion: (actual) is greater /0 than ;LSC) j 2- (allowed); therefore the house W is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20.30 requirements N, GARY HAAKENSON CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR 121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMONDS, WA 98020 (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221 Website: www.d.edmondsma.us DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT C. Planning - Building Engineering August 4, 2005 z Michel Construction 0: 0 7907 2 t 2"' St. SW It 102 R1. Edmonds, WA 98026 �n, Re: Building Permit: 2004-0711 0 M, C Site Address: 953 8"' Ave S M 0 Expiration Date: 08/26/05 0 0 Cr Dear Michel Construction, M M z The purpose of this lettcl* is to inform you that the last retilatiltiig.inspectioll oil your C Z, > project is a filial inspection(s). The filial illspection(s).deternlines that,there are no X 6i outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows the City to close your permit file. o -n _n The City considers the final:,inspection to,be oil e of the most important inspections _X, conducted on a project. Ili order to grant filial approval the following must be complete: M M 0) smoke detecto rs, house numbers, guardrails, handrails self -close doors between garage 0 r 0 M, and residence, egress fi -oiii sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weattier-stripptii-, any C W: Cn. Engincerin department requirements etc., Qf course not all oFthesc things n. lay 9 M 0 z specifically apply to yourproject but it does give you all idea about the kinds ofthings that must be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such, as: paint, carpet, rholdincys wallpaper, etc. Please be advised permits expire one year frorn the date orisSLtatice. if you will need'illoretilile to corlipletethe work, permits call be Z� renewed p)-ioi- to expiration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final -ees -e required in order to renew the approval granted by the Building Inspector, Full f at Cn permit. This call be very costly to you and wc.strongly encourage You to cllcck Your Z. 0 penilit expiration date, and call for the required final, inspectio'n(s), Note: If more than one department is required to Filial Your project, this is noted oil Your Job Card. O� M .Please fe I el free to contact tile at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions. Sincerely, JoAnne ZLIlaLtf Permit Specialist ixrem1)\I)S*r's\N I aster 1.etters\s1t%vaami_trSFR Incorporated August 11, 1890 Sister Citv. - Hekinan, Jai)an Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-B442 P.1 Dennis M. Bruce, RE. M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer March 25, 2006 City of Edmonds z 121 51h Ave.N 0 -1 Edmonds, WA 98020 0 rri: Subject: FINAL Report - Geotechnical Inspections Michel Construction, Inc. 8 New Homes CD 8th and Pine, Edmonds, Washington C 915 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0714 945 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0712 M __10 921 Oth Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0713 953 8th Ave. S / Permit No. 2004-0711 00 C ath 959 8'h Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0709 925 Ave. S I Permit No- 2004-0698 __19 X m 9338 1h Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0710 M z J0 821 Pine St I Permit No. 2004-0213 (final report submitted June 14, 2005) C z > r This engineering report presents the final results of ongoing geotechnical X � (D t 8th inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction a and Pine in 0 -n Edmonds, Washington. NOTE: Final report dated June 14, 2005 completed inspections at 821 Pine St. M M 0 — V) REFERENCES: 0 0 M 0 City of Edmonds approved Project Plans C co 9 0) M 0 0 Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E. Z _qito nhntnnranhs INSPECTIONS: ty This engineer provided on -site geotechnical inspections as required by Ci of Edmonds in accordance with special inspection agreements. Geotechnical inspections occurred 41gy 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 - DPAINAGE JRFVGG&r* P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX 0 y W I)r_VE:LOPlAEt,IT SERVICU, CTR- CITY OF EDMOW),S' A) z z 0 0 M Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-54G-8442 p.2 City of Edmonds Re: Michel Construction, Inc. March 25, 2006 Page 2 All excavations were stable and are approved. Soil Begiring: This engineer verified dense native sub -grade soils easily providing 2,000 p.s.f. bearing capacity. Subsequent foundation formwork reinforcing steel and concrete placement occurred in accordance with City of Edmonds approved Plans and good practices. Approved. Fill Material: No significant quantities of fill material were required for 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 engineer's 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: Perm anent erosion control measures have been properly established for the entire 8-home project: Final surficial grading has been completed, all driveways have been paved, rockehes 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 1 0 M --i -Ti C/) OM C MO 0 0 0 M M M Z ID --I C _Z 0 -n -n M M 0 C—/) 0 0 M C cl) M 0 Z X r Z --I 3: CO Z 0 1 0 M P.3 Mar 28 OG 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 City of Edmonds Re: Michel Construction, Inc. March 25, 2006 Page 3 have been installed. There are no All permanent erosion control measures on the project. Approved. geotechnical instabilities or exposed earth surfaces SUMMARY: z s have been properly completed, All special geotechnical inspection item 0 anent erosion control measures. including perm rn�e pletes the geotechnical inspections by D- Bruce, P.E- This report com ate to call. If there are any questions, do not hesit M C M 0 --10 C OF w M M z C > 17405 o -n -n ONA16 -e, P.E. Dennis M. Brur M rn GeDtechnical I Civil Engineer 0 — W 0 r om� DMB:abj C 0) 9 C/) cc: Michel Construction, Inc. Q 0 Zr z Z' 0 M a W - QEagle Eye Consulting Engineers PO BOX 523 Olalla WA 98359 C:206 356-7790 -4939 P:253 857 MICROFILM August 18, 2004 0 To: Michel Construction 0 7907 212 SW 4102 M Edmonds, WA 98027 =-n co 0 M! Re: Michel Single Family Home M U 0 959 8" Ave 0 Edmonds, Washington 98026 0 C M M Z EECE # ED04-22 Client's Reference Number # 04-304 > Z This project is approved for " Architectural, Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical, VIAQC and Energy" Permit only. The drawing review has been completed and accepted for 0 -n permit with the Approved Stamped drawings returned to the City of Edmonds on August -n 18,2004. M M CI) 0 This Plan has been redlined on A5 0 M C Cn 9 U) Your plans are being reviewed concurrently with the Building Department, Fire Q 0 Z Department, Zoning Department and Public Works Engineering. Changes, clarifications nt plan or additional corrections may be required subsequent to the Building Departme review, when comments are received from the other concerned departments. Should you have any inquiries regarding this letter, please Hoyt Jeter at (253) 857-4151 between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm. City of E(Imonds By: Z� Hoyt Jeter, PE President \\DglL-eyL-\eaVle eye consulting engineers\111an RL�view\1-'dnionds\2004\ED04-22\ED41-22,il)pmv,il.dtic F-INAL PROJECTAPPROVALTORW.' DATE,. TO:' PERMIT COORDINATOR, BUfLDING DIVISION ,VROM: F IREi :zNT,.DA.Tl---..... ... . DEPARTME '�SE S ENGINE �I?A-NO D WISIORDAT -E 0 PMASuSIGti 7t PLAN DIVISIOU'DATE", m b- 01 m ,;YROJECT vp c: Al C77 777 m 0 C) ADDRESS� Or -�,.'SITE SP ZZL DATE-4,N.. ECTE M M Z ,DESCRIPTION OF -WORK TO BE*INSPECTEI nj-qav- 0 lield insoection Was �co'ilduetea,z to��aea C.Wlt,* ved-pv� ,'A �.Appio,�. 1. -approi. o -n -n;U ,.,,dcn'6t6 .-.,tb t there. Sig tied ,:b are tio�.�-.oDjections,.,,ir.out..,,..t e rpk a epartmen RF ORMANCE: B4 NDS:And-the rantiug�4,`.: PE C) mm U5 OM C/) cn �,�GRA N NT.Fl AL,PRQJE, CT'.�;APPROVAL-,' M 0 Z in, j, --CYAPPROY. WITH CO GRANTIPROJt NDlT,I0-N&S,,NOt w 0 d Copy CONDIUPNS,,,gj�64 t"' �ofitfaUd(b nsOcc 0� cn La m E, INAL'IN'SPECI'ION-,OUTSI'A-NI)NGIS8. M D F "co f lfk). NOTI E� i rattot, yl nt)cc or ff —b v. G E8: APP T- TA D IN G 8P N Usti -N PR JEQY RA ;RRE �-l.'t&ihO-bidg.torals-ocat)[-VI 5/04 2 F'r V Y: RECORD OF INSPECTIONS INSPECTOR DATE APPROVED SETBACKS ..................... FOUNDATION: Footing ...................... Wall.......................... Pier/Porch ................. Retaining Wall ........... Slab Insulation .......... PLUMBING: Underground ............. Rough -in ................... Commercial Final ...... HEATING: Gas Test .................... Gas Piping ................. Equipment ................. Commercial Final ....... EXTERIOR SHEATHING NAILING .......................... FRAMING........................ FIRST FLOOR FRAMING ... INSULATION ................... Floor Insulation ......... Wall Insulation ........... Ceiling Insulation ....... SHEETROCK NAILING ... SPECIAL INSPECTION ... MISCELLANEOUS .......... FINAL APPROVAL FOR OCCUPANCY .................. 'SideSewer# q __071 1 Amout paid $ /k The Initials MT arc Milton Thompson, I temporary contract inspcctor for the City. Datelssue C xPires- 4�11510a_ WaterMeterSize- �Xq 11 61 Amount Paid R c c elp t it Datepurc,� ed M wed Zi Row Arnount 0�,_____jrZeCCjPt z 0 'I 0 M -n M C M 0 __10 0 C M M Z C Cn 0 -n n :lf M M 0 0 M C/) Cn Q 0 Z > z 0) z 0 1 0 M