20040712.pdf9
DATE RECEIVEO�
2
PERMIT EXPIRES
T USE PERMIT
CITY OF EDMONDS ZONE N U M B E R 71,_�2-
CONSTRUCTION PERMIT APPLICATION JOB SUITE/APT#
ADDRESS 21 �?� � M
A.�
0 NER NAME/NAME OF BUSINESS
PLAT NAME/SUBDIVISI LOT NO. LID NO
ON NO.
M CA\141 r �e
W MAILING ADDRESS 1-4
z 5 LID FEE S
IESCP Approved
PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY PER OFFICIAL STREET MAP AW Permit Required
2a2c-a- ( -() 2— 1 Use Permit Roq'd 13
CITY stroo
ZIP TELEPHONE EXISTING — PROPOSED Inspection A q ired
Sidealk Relolu:'Iod
REQUIRED DEDICATION FI underground
22-11 wiring roquired [3
NAME
METER SIZE LINE SIZE NO. OF FIXTURES PRV REQUIRED
NO
Lu hW 4 1 1 Lu
M
ADDRESS z
REMARKS z
OWNER/CONTRAcroR RESPONSIBLE FOR EROSION CONTROL/DRAINAGE
2P z
cc
—3qL] zi ;r
CITY ZIP ELEPHONE )(24= cs ei� c r Ii r) Cs)
elr('071
NAME CBL#
F& Ak L
LAIJ GINEERING REVIEWED BY DATE
ADDRESS
0 tA_ 0 717-
FIRE REVIEWED BY DATE ul
FE CITY ZIP TELEPHONE Ir
0 1
7-7�0-2;2jj ic
VARIANCE OR CU SHORELINE OR ADB# INSPECTION BOND
STATE LICENSE NOMBER ERPIRATION DATE CHECKED BY REOV/ POSTED
r _� a - ' ES PQ S —
1"`�t I (+t 5 _t) I F)�� A 4.lrl SEPA REVIEW SIGN AREA Ely HEIGHT
PROPERTY TAX ACCOUNT PARCEL NO COMPLETE EX ED
EMPT ALLOWED PROPOSED ALLOWED PROPOS
C-A _ 1
'2 L "I .. 11,
Z.A EXPW/031 F
=4 LOT COVERAGE REQUIRED SETBACKS (FT.) PROPOSED SETBA(;I(S (F-1
vj NEW RESIDENTIAL PLUMBING / MECH ) r
A ALLOWED. PROPOSED /VFF!qWS qfl;�E67 �tzi�RSARIA
El ADDITION COMMERCIAL COMPLIANCE OR 3 q a/v 5 /" r x z
CHANGE OF USE 15. 57. 15 � 5- , i 5 , I I
z
PARKING LOT AREA PLAMNIN6 RjEMVIEWY DATE
REMODEL MULTIFAMILY SIGN REO'D I PROVIDED
REPAIR G CYDS FENCE �k _)", I
X Fn REMARKS
OTHER
DEMOLISH 13 TANK E]
GARAGE RETAINING WALL FIRE SPRINKLER
z yCA CARPORT ROCKERY FIRE ALARM
0
(TYPE OF UaE. BUSINESS OR ACTIVITY) EXPLAIN:
CHECKED BY 7P SYUICTION C�OZZ OCCUP T
S
L) NO U I E5 ef-\-0 \ t ��( GRO
NUMBER OF CRITICA-L im
Lu NUMBER C W1
OF OWELLIN AREAS SPECIAL INSPECTIO� AREA
OCCUPANt
0 STORIES UNITS NUMBER
:z- I REQUIRED YES LOAD
DESCRIBE WORK TO BE DONE REMARKS 0
z
PROGRESS INSPECTIONS PER UBC 108/FINAL INSPECTION REQ'D 5
1\ �A 1, \ /'A 1 1 A!5 . r5' & h /,-\k M - - — I =!
At-:306 '
-
I A A L,, 2 i—T-rt-l"
h 1 -1 J^= Vl\/1-3
0114'V!:� F r--tr f
VALUATION
$
L
j?l
Description
FEE
Description
FEE
Plan Check
State Surcharge
7 HEAT %)URCE
GLAZII`jG
LOT SLOPE %
4�;AA/
Building Permit
City Surcharge
"ECK NO:
VESTED DATE/
('2
Plumbing
Base Fee
v4rn
Mechanical
701
M
cc
Ld
0.
THIS PERMIT AUTHORIZES ONLY THE WORK NOTED. THIS PERMIT COVERS WORK To
BE DONE ON PRIVATE PROPERTY ONLY. ANY CONSTRUCTION ON THE PUBLIC
DOMAIN (CURBS, SIDEWALKS, DRIVEWAYS, MARQUEES, ETC.) WILL REQUIRE
SEPARATE PERMISSION.
Grading
Engr. Review
PERMIT APPLICATION: 180DAYS
PERMIT LIMIT., I YEAR - PROVIDED WORK IS STARTED WITHIN 180 DAYS
SEE BACK OF PINK PERMIT FOR MORE INFORMATION
Engr. Inspection
cn 'APPLICANT ON BEHALF OF HIS OR HER SPOUSE, HEIRS, ASSIGNS AND SUCCESORS Fire Review Plan Chk. Deposit
IN INIERE�T, AGREES rO INDEMNIFY, DEFEND AND HOLD HARMLESS THE CITY OF
M EDMONDS, WASHINGTON, ITS OFFICIALS, EMPLOYEES, AND AGENI"S FROM ANY AND
Fire Inspection Receipt #
ALL CLAIMS FOR DAMAGES OFWHATEVER NATURE. ARISING DIRECTLYOR INDIRECILY
FROM THE ISSUANCE OF THIS PERMIT ISSUANCE OF 1HIS PERMIT SHALL NOT BE
DEEMED TO MODIFY, WAIVE OR REDUCE ANY REQUIREMENT OF ANY CITY ORDINANCE Landscapelnsp. Total Amt. Due
NOR LIMIT IN ANY WAY THE Cl rYS ABILITY TO ENFORCE ANY ORDINANCE PROVISION
Recording Fee Receipt #
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 APPLICATION APPROVAL
THE OWNER. I AGREE TO COMPLY WITH CITY AND STATE LAWS REGULATING CONSTRUC- T his application is not a permit until signed by the
TION, AND IN DOING THE WORK AUTHORIZED THEREBY, NO PERSON WILL BE EMPLOYED CALL Building Official or his/her Deputy: and Fees are paid, and
IN VIOLATION OF THE LABOR CODE OF THE STATE OF WASIIINGTON RELATING TO FOR INSPECTION receipt is acknowledged in space provided
WORKMEN'S COMPENSATION INSL?4A�CE AND RCW 18.27. 1
QFFI 'IGW
1�f DATE
(OWNER OR DArE SIGNED (425)
Lmmi :-'V7111z - I
S?r 0 771-0220 REI JSF BY D E
A "rf 4VN EXT 1333
E14 //J) 1w
IT IS UN LA FU L TO USE OR OCCUPY A BUILDING OR STRUCTURE UNTIL
AVLILE - YELLO�_
A FINAL INSPECTION HAS BEEN MADE AND APPROVAL OR A CERTIFI- OR'IGIN vFINSPECTron I
N
CATE OF OCCUPANCY HAS BEEN GRANTED. UBC SECTION 109 PINK - NER COLD - ASSESSOR
09;03 PRESS HARD -YOU ARE MAKING 4 COPIES
z
0
M
—11 -n
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
—i K
M M
M Z
.0
C
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C C/)
MCI)
M 0
Z
z
z
0
I
0
171
I
Gi
0- 0-
I W '�—E�R& S
INSPECTIONS
0 ' N "blUu.
y-
R=20.00,
o'0' 7
0
.001 No FIT�i
N
-77
AVE. GRADE
160.45'
B.271-00,
C. 2 13'
D - —r-) - 8 (y
0
.14 = 26-5.25'
290.25'
H01
ACTUAl- HEIGHT: 1-90-17'
OT--2 F(-)(-)TliNC,= 25(-.,.00'
260-00'
ISTFI-. =270.00'
IPERVIOUS AREA -------- I
I N
c
BUILDING: 2,631.50 SQ. FT.
DRIVEWAY: 1,62933 SQ. FT.
PATIO: 32.00 SQ. FT.
L
DECK: 71.21) SQ. FT.
'Q
I-OT covE-RAGE:
2,064.00 / (-,,001.02 = 34-4'.';�
-107-3250-0217-701)
PTA.
FILTER FENCE
IMICHEL
CONSTRUCTION, INC
94- 8TH AV E
'c-
E Z' I -CA)
at
S' t �J�ATE
lvdn-
6"J 5dats-�"
ad
Other
BY ENI
INEERING
,Z— WOOD FENCE
26(2 0 265bate-
,n ulTY COPY
p F-
0
Aru EXCEPTION
t im
RECEIVEr
J U N 3 It' 2,c'(1,4
BUILDING il'
CITY OF
'o
u
L TJG A G PLAN- N
0- -R -D-IN
LE: V = 20'-O!l
z
0
i
0
m
--i -n
M
c
M
0
0
0 c:
M
M Z
1c) --I . I
c
'cn'
o -n
n
MITI
0 —cn
0 r-
0 m
c (n
k cn
M 0
Z
M
>
z
cn
z
0
i
0
m
K,
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
July 2, 2004
RECEIVED
z
JUL - 6 2004
M
Mr. Rob Michel PERMIT COUNTER
Michel Construction, Inc.
7907 - 212th Street S.W. #102
M
C
Edmonds, Washington 98026
rT, 0
0
Subject: Geotechnical Evaluation "Soils Report"
0
0 C
Prop osed (2) 4 Lot S.F.R. Development
M
M z
811 Ave. S & Pine Street, Edmonds, Washington
C z
>
Cn
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
0
requirements.
o M
C (1)
9 C/)
M 0
Z
REFERENCES:
Survey by L.S.A.
>
z
Location map
Site plan CD
Project drainage plan by Donna Breske, PE 101% Py z
CITY CU.- 0
Photographs
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
I
Michel Construction, inc. 8 Ih Ave. S & Pine Street
Pagetwo
CHARACTERISTICS:
A survey of the subject property was conducted on June 12, 2004 by
Z
0
L.S.A. The property is rectangular, and consists of approximately 62,510
-4
frontag e feet along the east side of 8" Ave. S and 179.26 frontage feet along the
0
M
north side of Pine Street. The adjoining properties, as well as the neighborhood,
consist of single family residences on similar size lots.
M
The subject property contains mature trees, shrubs, and lowland grassy
MO.
0
0
0
areas. The property is moderately sloped (less than 14%), and drains
C
southwesterly to the existing wetland.
M
M Z
C Z
>
EVALUATION:
r
CD
Visual assessments of the property at the N.E. corner of 8 Ih Ave. S and
0 n
-n
Pine Street revealed no evidence of any geotechnical distress. No slides, no
M M
settlements, no creep, nor any significant erosional degradation were observed.
0
0
This engineer has considerable experience in the immediate vicinity and
0 M
C Cn
understands the foundation subgrade conditions.
9 (D
M 0
Z
Experience has proven that the subgrade soils are fully capable of
properly supporting the proposed 8 new single family residences.
>
This engineer evaluated the 81h Ave. S & Pine Street property on July 1,
Z
2004. Significant clearing, grading, and drainage work had already occurred.
(see photographs).
Z
0
q
The S.W. corner of the property is understood to be designated a W.Z., in
0
M
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. -
I
1h
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Ave. S & Pine Street
Page three
Ground water was present in the southern portion of the property. See
photographs.
Z
0
This engineer has reviewed drainage plans by Donna Breske, P.E. and
-4
concurs with the system of drains and detention for geotechnical integrity.
0
The very dense subgrade soils will provide excellent foundation bearing
rn
with proper drainage controls.
0 M
C
M 0
0
0
C
CONCLUSIONS RECOMMENDATIONS:
M
M Z
Based on the findings of this investigation, and experience with similar
C Z
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,
q -n
n
subject to the following:
M M
Standard reinforcing continuous and spread footings. Allowable bearing
0
pressure: 2,000 p.s.f.
0 M
C Cn
9 CD
"ixinlpnt fl"iri nrPQzure of 35 n c f is recommended for anv retainina
Q 0
Z
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
W t
;U
Z
X
V)
Z
0
i
0
M
I
a
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
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
-half inch, with differential settlements on the order of
thickness) will be about one
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 Desjg��..
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
A
0
M
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.
z
SLABS -ON -GRADE:
0
M
Slab -on -grade floors may be supported on undisturbed, competent native
CD
soils or on structural fill. The slabs may be supported on the existing soils
0 M
C
provided these soils can be recompacted prior to placement of the free -draining
M 0
sand or gravel underneath the slab. This sand and gravel layer should be a
0
0 0
minimum of four (4) inches thick. We also recommend using a vapor barrier
C
such as 6-mil. plastic membrane beneath the slab with minimum overlaps of 12
M
M z
inches for sealing purposes.
C z
>
PERMANENT FOUNDATION AND RETAINING WALLS:
0 _n
Retaining walls backfilled on one side only should be designed to resist
M M
lateral earth pressures imposed by the soils retained by these structures. The
CD
0
following recommended design parameters are for walls less than twelve (12)
0 M
C CD
feet in height which restrain level backfill:
9 CD
M 0
Z
Parameter Design Value
X
Active Earth Pressure* 35 p.c.f.
z
Passive Earth Pressure 350 p.c.f.
Coefficient of Friction 0.55
Soil Unit Weight 125 p.c.f.
z
0
Where:
0
M
(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).
11
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 th 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
A
0
M
=n-
M
M 10
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
'() --I
C _Z
0 -n
n
M M
0
0
0 M
(J)
Cf)
Q 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
i
0
M
Michel Construction, Inc. 81h 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
Z
height of four (4) feet deep in unsaturated soils may be vertical. For temporary
0
cuts having a height greater than four (4) feet, the cut should have an inclination
0
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
U5 -i
cuts into native soils should be inclined no steeper than 2:1 (H:V). Fill slopes
M
C:
M
should not exceed 1:1 (H:V).'It is important to note that sands do cave suddenly,
0
-40
0
and without warning. The contractors should be made aware of this potential
C
--I K : W�,
hazard.
M
M Z
Water should not be allowed to flow uncontrolled over the top of any
C _Z
>
temporary or permanent slope. All permanently exposed slopes should be
seeded with an appropriate species of vegetation to reduce erosion and improve
0 n
stability of the surficial layer of soil.
A
-
M M
DRAINAGE CONSIDERATIONS:
0
0 M
C CD
Footing drains are recommended at the base of all footings and retaining
9 Cn
Q 0
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
Z
drainage. All roof and surface water drains must be kept separate from the
Cn
foundation drain system.
Z
0
The excavation and site should be graded so that surface water is directed
0
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.
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 th Ave. S & Pine Street
Page eight
)RK 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
--i -n
0 M
M 0
0
-40
0 C
M
M Z
,C) -4
C
o -n
M M
0 C-1)
0
0 M
C C/)
M 0
Z
7-1
Z
--i
W
Z
0
--i
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
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" & Pine contains upslope seepage. The road (8 1h
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.
CONC-RETE.'
All foundation concrete (footings, stem walls, slabs, any retaining walls,
etc.) shall have a minimum cement content of 5-1/2 sacks per cubic yard of
concrete mix.
INSPECTION:
The recommendations of this report are only valid when key geotechnical
aspects are inspected by this engineer during construction:
Z
0
i
0
M
:; 9
M
C
MO
0
-1 0
0 C
—1 K
X M
M Z
g) --i
Cn
0 -n
n
M M
0
0 M
cl)
Cn
M 0
Z
X
Z
Z
0
i
0
M
I
W,
81h
Michel Construction, Inc. Ave. S & Pine Street
Page ten
Soil cuts
Foundation subgrade verification
Retaining wall, or rockery placement z
0
Any fill placement
Subsurface drainage installation 0
M
Temporary and final erosion control measures.
C/)
M
SUMMARY:
0
0
The proposed Michel Construction 8 lot SFR project at 8" & Pine Oc
Edmonds, is geotechnically viable when constructed in accordance with the XM
Mz
recommendations herein, compliance with City of Edmonds approved plans and
C: -Z
requirements, and key geotechnical inspection during construction. >
0
CLOSURE: -n
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.
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
Geotechnical / Civil Engineer
MM
0 C-1)
0
0 M
C C/)
M 0
Z
z
C/)
z
0
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical/ Civil Engineer
September 29, 2004 Ft C
JAN
City of Edmonds
121 5 1h Ave. N. DI\fIS1014
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical 1psp—ections
Michel Construction Project 48in and Pine-)
8 New Single Family Residences
This report presents the ongoing results of geotechnical inspections for
the 8 new residences at 8 th and Pine (by Michel Construction Inc.).
REFERENCES:
0 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 �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 gp�ila onsite inspections during periods of active
excavation and foundation work.
915 81h 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.
SOILS - FOUNDA rIONS - SITE DEVELOPMENT - INSPECrION - DRAINAGE - DESIGN& PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
Z
0
M
City of Edmonds
September 29, 2004
Page 2 of 3
921 811 Ave. S. (2004-07131: 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 a I pproved
plans.
925 8" Ave. S. (2004-QQ981: 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 81h Ave. S. (2004-07101: 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.
945 81h Ave.. S. (2004-Q712 proved. Soil
1: All excavation stable and ap
bearing of 2,000 p-s-f- vedfied. "OK to proceed with foundation formwork,
reinforcing steel, and concrete placement per City of Edmonds approved
plans.
953 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-QZ1 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.
959 8th Ave. S. (2004-07091: 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.
821 Pine St. (2004-0697): 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 verifi proper work through this date
September 29, 2004.
0 The excavations for all 8 lots are stable and pppio—ved.
z
0
i
0
M
-1 71
Fn -4
X
0 M
C
M
0
-10
0 C
M
M z
ID --I
—z
0)
o -n
M M
0 —C1)
0 r-
0 M
C Cn
9 (n
M 0
Z
z
0)
z
0
1
0
M
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
M.S.C.E., M.B.A. Geotechnical /Civil Engineer
RECEIVED
December 30, 2004 JAN G 2005
ENGINEEPUIG DIVIS10m
City of Edmonds
121 5 1h Ave. N.
Z
Edmonds, WA 98020
0
Subject: Field Reports Geotechnical Inspections
0
Michel Construction Project(iF_an_dP_-ine`-)
8 New Residences
Vi
M
This engineering report presents the results of ongoing ge otechnical
0
M 0
at 8th
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction and
0
0 C:
Pine.
X M
M Z
REFERENCES:
* City of Edmonds approved project plans
ch
0 Geotechnical reports by D. Bruce, P.E. July 2, 2004
0 n
n�
0 Previous inspection reports
- i i
0 Photographs
mm
0
INSPECTIONS:
0
OM
C: cn
This engineer has provided and continues to provide onsite geotechnical
MO
Z
inspections as required by City of Edmonds authorization.
Pine St. (2004-06971: This engineer 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 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).
SOIL S - FOUNDA rIONS - S1 rE DE VEL OPMEN T - INSPEC TION - DRA INA GE - DESIGN & PERAW 7' - L EGA L
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442 1 1 11.
City of Edmonds
December 30, 2004
Page 2 of 3
953 81h Ave. S. (2004-071-11: Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
gpploved through this date (December 30, 2004).
945 81h Ave. S. (2004-071 : 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 geotechnicaily 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 th Ave. S. (2004-0710): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
gppfoved through this date (December 30, 2004).
925 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-0698): 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.
921 8 Ih Ave. S. (2004-07131: 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 geotechnicallIV approved.
This engineer verified proper placement of subsurface drainage in
accordance with approved plans and good practices.
Z
0
4
0
M
:i 9
Cl) --i
0 M
C
M
0
0
0 C
M
M Z
10
C
Cn
0 _n
n
—4
M
M M
q
0
0 M
C C/)
9 Cn
M 0
Z
3:
Z
CI)
Z
0
A
0
M
City of Edmonds
December 30, 2004
Page 3 of 3
915 8" Ave. S. (2004-0714): Subsurface soil bearing previously verified
and approved. Foundation installation, subsurface drains, and site grading
approved through this date (December 30, 2004).
SUMMARY:
0 Ongoing geotechnical inspections verified proper foundation, drainage,
and rockery work through this date (December 30, 2004).
9 No adverse geotechnical impacts have occurred to this site or neighboring
properties as a result of the construction activities.
0 Ali geotechnical aspects are approved through this date (December 30,
2004).
0 Geotechnical inspections ongoing as required by City of Edmonds.
If there are any questions, do, not hesitate to call.
I V'F'
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
j — Geotechnical / ivil Engineer
I EUMES 12123/
C.C. Michel Construction Inc.
7907 212 th St. SW #102
Edmonds, WA 98026
DMB:jpb
z
9
0
M
--i -n
M
C
M
0
0
0 C
IT!
IT! z
C z
65
o -n
M
M M
0 C—/)
0
0 IT!
Cn
Cn
M 0
Z
z
--I
z
0
q
0
M
M, �
Height Calculation Worksheet
Address: C1 Fk V,
Date:
Inspector(s):
1. Datum Point: ?.,IVN Q-
2. Datum Point Elevation: tA -f
z
0
3. Average Grade:
M
.4..Max um Elevation Allowed:)-(iverag6 giade)-+ 25
U5
M
C
5. Reference Point Elevation Shot to House:
M 0
0
-40
0
(datum elevation)+ j7 g%j (grade to transit level line
9,q:l 'shot to house)
C
M
MZ
6. Measurements from line shot onto house to r6of ridge:
C
Cn
L 0
-n
-n
C1.
M M
W
0
0 M
C W
K 0)
M 0
Z
z
Total: I k
W
z
M
7. Actual Elevation::L'Sq �A8 (reference point elevation) + 0,*:,I I (measurements
from #6) 9 .5q
Conclusion:
(actual) is greater /Qgj&han 9-9O.9LS (allowed); therefore the house b/
is not over the height requirement per ECDC 16.20-30 requirements
GARY HAAKENSON
CITY OF EDMONDS MAYOR
121 5TH AVENUE NORTH EDMON DS, WA 98020 - (425) 771-0220 FAX (425) 771-0221
Website: www.d.edmondsma.us
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES DEPARTMENT
Planning - Building Engineering
June 8, 2005
0
Michel Construction
M
7907 212"' St. SW # 102
Edmonds, WA 98026
3:
M
Re: Building Permit: 2004-0712
M
0
0
Site Address: 945 8"' Ave S.
0 C
Expiration Date: 08/26/05
M
M Z
Dear Micliel Construction,
C _Z
The purpose of this letter is to inform you that the last remaining inspection Oil YOLir
X
project is a final inspection(s). The final inspection(s) determines that there are no
0 -n
-n
outstanding life -safety issues and approval allows tile City to close your pennit File.
M M
The City considers the final inspection to be one of tile most important inspections
0 Ui
0
conducted on a project. In order to grant final approval tile following must be complete:
0 M
C W
smoke detectors, hou se numbers, guardrails, handrails, self -close doors between garage
K W
M 0
and residence, egress from sleeping rooms, safety glazing, weather-stripping, any
Z r—
Engineering department rcquirein ents etc. Of course not all of these things may
X
specifically apply to your project but it does give you an idea about tile kinds orthings
that mus t be complete as well as some items that do not need to be installed such as:
>
Yom
paint, cat -pet, moldings, wallpaper, etc. Please be advised permits expire one year f
Z
the date of issuance. if you will need more tirne to corriplete the work, permits call be
3:
renewed prior to expiration for one half fees. If the permit expires without a final
55
Z
approval granted by the Building Inspector, full. fees are required in order to renew tile
0
-4
permit. This can be very costly to you and we strongly encourage you to check your
0
permit expiration date and call for the required final inspcction(s). Note: If more than
M
one department is required to final your project, this is noted on your Job Card.
Please feel free to contact tile at 425-771-0220 if you have any questions.
Sincerely,
JoAnne Zulauf
Permit Specialist
I Xre nip\I)SI" s\M aster 1.etters\,SRwaaniL1rSFR
Incorporated August 11, 1890
Sister City - Hekli nan,Japan
ff �
Mar 28 06 09:31a D. Bruce, P.E. 206-546-8442 P.1
Dennis M. Bruce. RE.
M. S. C. M. B. A. otechnical /Civil Engineer
March 25, 2006
City of Edmonds
121 5" Ave. N
Edmonds, WA 98020
Subject: FINAL Report - Geotechnical Inspections
Michel Construction, Inc. 8 Now Homes
8th and Pine, Edmonds, Washington
915 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0714 945 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0712
921 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0713 953 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0711
925 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0698 959 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0709
933 8th Ave. S I Permit No. 2004-0710
821 Pine St / Permit No. 2004-0213 (final report submitted June 14, 2005)
This engineering report presents the final resufts of ongoing geotechnical
inspections for the 8 new homes constructed by Michel Construction at 8th and Pine in
4, 2005 completed inspections
Edmonds, Washington. NOTE: Final report dated June 1
at 821 Pine St.
REFERENCES:
0 City of Edmonds approved Project Plans RECERVED
a Geotechnical and inspection reports by D. Bruce, P.E.
0 Site photographs MAR 2 8 2006
DEVELOPMENT SERVICES CTR.
INSPECTIONS: CITY OF EDMONDS
This engineer provided on -site geotechnical inspections as required by City of
Edmonds in accordance with special inspection agreements. Geotechnical inspections
occurred Agj!.y 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 a PERMIT - LEGAL
P.O. Box 55502 - Shoreline, WA 98155 - (206) 546-9217 - FAX (206) 546-8442
z
0
i
0
M
--i -n
U5
M
0
0
-40
0
M
M Z
r') -1
C
3:
U5
0 -Ti
n
M M
0
0
0 M
C cl)
9 co
Q 0
Z
3:
z
-4
:C
Cl)
z
0
A
0
M
0
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.
a Soil Beadng: 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.
0 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).
-grade
This engineer verified the following: Base rock embeddment in dense sub
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 gppLoved 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 all a roved.
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-home project: Final surficial
grading has been completed, all dfiveways have been paved, rockedes
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
i
0
M
D. Bruce, P.E. 20G-54G-8442 P.3
Mar 28 OG 09:31a
City of Edmonds
Re: Michel Construction, Inc.
March 25, 2006
Page 3
ol measures have been installed. There are no
All permanent erosion contr
exposed earth surfaces on the project- Approved.
geotechnical instabilities or
z
SUMMARY:
pection items have been properly completed
All special geotechnical ins 0
including permanent erosion control measures.
pletes the geotechnical inspections by D. Bruce, P.E.
This report com Cn
M
C
If there are any questions, do not hesitate to call. M
0
0 C
M
M z
Tw
C
z
>
0 -n.
-n
ONA1161
M M F
Dennis M. Bruce, P.E.
W
�O
EXPIRES Geotechnical Civil Engineer r, .:i.
0 M,
C 0)
cn,
DMB:abj MO
Z
truction, Inc.
cc: Michel Cons
z
0)
z
(ZEagle Eye Consulting Engineers
PO BOX 523
MICRJFILM
Olalla WA 98359
C:206 356-7790
P:253 857-4939
August 18, 2004
z
0
To: Michel Construction
M
7907 212 SW # 102
Edmonds, WA 98027
C0
Re: Michel Single Family Home M
C
th M0
959 8 Ave 0
0
Edmonds, Washington 98026 0 C.
M
Client's Reference Number # 04-303 EECE # ED04-23 M z
C
This project is approved for " Architectural, Structural, Plumbing, Mechanical, VIAQC
and Energy " Pen -nit only. The drawing review has been completed and accepted for
permit with the Approved Stamped drawings returned to the City of Ethylonds on August
18,2004.
This plan has been redlined on A5
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) 857-4151
between 8:00 am and 5:00 pm.
City of Edmonds
Bv:
Hoyt Jeter, PE
President
\\Ugleoye\eagIe eye consulting engineers\ Plan Review\ Udrnonds\2flGI\ED0-1-23\ ED-0 1-23 approval.doc